but they are not playing anyway atm, they are waiting in line, if they leave other regs just will get more games/hour and rake stars gets will be same

and I dont think its sharkys fault that there is more regs.

cant imagine how 20 people trying register 2 lobbies, there will be millions of simulsits, also that means regs will leave

It worked fine before and I dont remember much moaning prior to sharky. Simulsits are a good thing and part of the battle involved in getting a lobby first.

How did the lobbies work prior to sharky fwiw?
Just a lot of simulsits?

obv, because there was less regs

you never had many simusits maybe a few a day, u could chop flip or play. simusits was never much of an issue

I don't see why people think Sharky is so bad. Is easy and convenient to auto reg if nothing else. Is so nice to have everything taken care of for you. Is a pain to watch the lobby whilst in game if you want to add another table. Can obviously still sit people manually if you so wish to.

When Sharky is down, is actually not bad for me as am in the UK and can reg for lobbies quicker than most. But would still prefer to have it in the long run. From that point of view, is also not fair for people living far away from PS servers.



Could not agree more with these 2 points. Most people seem to acknowledge that HU hypers would become close to unprofitable if you took away or even massively decreased the amount of game selection from it's current level in a game with such tiny edges. And yet Stars are potentially doing it and leaving other formats untouched! What is with that?

Look at the recent san4ouz v lucaslucas7 HU4rollz. Glancing at the EV graphs it looked like lucas was destroying him. Then when you look properly you see that lucas was breaking even and san4 was losing only to rake. Just shows tiny tiny edges. Lucas made next to no money from the games.

There is a reason why most regs (non VPP chasers) would rather play recs!Most people (regs) are obviously happy with current situation at the moment otherwise they wouldn't continue to play.

I know Stars' issue seems to be that they want less bumhunting, and more rec v rec action. Well you know what, poker is a dog eat dog game. You're fighting for each other's money and recs have to be aware of this when they put their money on the table. They know what the deal is and if they want to do well then they need to improve. Just like any aspect of life! They are aware of the situation when they take their money out and are aware that it is -EV. But they still do it.

If an inexperienced gambler went into a bookies and placed a bet on sport, they wouldn't expect better odds just because they haven't done their research. In sports like tennis and football, weaker players/teams are not looked after more. In fact the opposite is the case as they use seeding to keep the best apart from each other for as long as they can. You have to earn your respect through ability.

People are always saying if 'weak regs' want to move up and be profitable, stop getting sat etc, then they need to improve, surely this is the same for recs? The main difference is just the term used and Stars seem to want to protect the recs. There is nothing stopping a rec from getting Sharky (or Stars implementing their own close to identical system), or open sitting. They will obviously just get sat until they improve and become not worth sitting. If they want to play other recs then like Switch said, they should go and play low stakes. Same principle as me not going up and playing the $1k regs!

Also the recs can't be too unhappy at the current situation as they keep coming back. I've said this before but imo most recs don't care about game selection at all. They will usually play you until they lose, then they snap decline regardless of how much they 'should have' won or lost in those games. Plenty of times I've had someone decline me then instantly come and sit my lobby at a different stake. Also the amount of times I've played someone at $100s and then seen them at $1ks. They don't care who they play! They just want to play.

Partly for that reason, I personally am not a fan of infinite lobbies and I think the current system with Sharky with people waiting in line is actually pretty fair.



Really good points here imo. For all of what I've said, I guess I can't comment 100% until we know exactly what the proposal is. Of course there will never be an ideal situation that is everybody's exact wish and people have to acknowledge and accept that. But as stated by I just L0ld, Completely removing our ability to game select and forcing reg on reg action would be extremely unfair

The only way to increase appeal of the game for recreational players and induce so-called "reg wars" simultaneously is to REDUCE rake. That is so simple, but not for those who think only about profit (right, stars?)

Sincerely, I don't understand people, who think that so-called "battle net system" will be different from zoom mechanics. Why pokerstars would invent smth in this direction when they already had working zoom mechanics? Because several regs ask that. This is the last thing they will worried about.

I agree with this, but for most regs it is not game selection it is game avoidance, and this would be possible with the system I am proposing.

Game selection and game avoidance are near enough the same thing, one person is selecting not to play the other player, you can just word it differently and say they are avoiding them.

People are whining about losing game selection, my system will take that away.

In reality they want game avoidance which the system will offer.

Only for people who exclusively bumhunt could you consider game avoidance tactics the same as game selection ones. If you want more action we can't make an economy that caters to these needs.

Sharky has been around for 2years now, the moaning started about 6 months ago, cause new regs are coming.

I don't know why people are so surprised the list of regs is getting longer. There was ton of action in HU cash 4 years ago. People found out bumhunting is like printing money so over the years more and more regs came and lobbies got ****ed up.
The same is happening here. People didn't give a **** about hypers so there was no problem with the lobbies. Lots of people think it's sharkys fault but hypers became popular and advertised a lot (coaching packs, sharkscope leaderboards). I'm admin at a big poker forum in my country and 2 years ago no one played hypers, the last 6 months 70% of new member are starting with hypers and looking for coaching pack from husng.com. So new regs are coming in every hour. And don't give me that crap that sharky is allowing regs to sit higher then they should, it speeds things up but just a little bit. And like we see in all the reg battle threads, there is really no motivation for playing other regs with the current rake.

Some people will always complain. When hypers where introduced people cried cause traffic went down at turbos.

Things change, so we can adapt or die. I love sharky and don't want things to change, but if stars decide to bring in the battle net so be it, time will tell if it's good for the games, if not we'll adapt it all part of poker.

But if Stars really want to implement something new then I'm all for ibavly/chadders idea of battle net, cause it's just free sharky

the player avoidance system would only work if both players set avoid, yes? otherwise it would be complete garbage



also: what i don't like about the current promotion is that the # of games it too high for it to benefit rec players. i would much rather see a smaller VPP boost but for much less games, like rematch 10 times vs a player in a row and get a small vpp bonus. like let's say you earn 10vpp per game and after 10 games vs same player because of rematches you would get 12vpp or something for the last game. just a very small bonus to encourage rematching for everyone, not just reg vs reg players.
rec player just don't get that kind of volume vs same player in a month for the current promotion.

i also think something like 10 games in a row suits the hypers format itself MUCH more, it appealst much more to the rec players that play hypers because its a fast game, they dont plan ahead for the whole month. they just want to play a few games and be done with it for the day (most of the time) or play a few games on the side while it's boring in their MTT they are playing. so if you give people much smaller short term benefits it would benefit all players.

You speak like you are a shareholder in pokerstars. Your game is not so strong but you get to avoid many players as you are part of the same group as them on your HUSNG site or whatever, when people challenge you they often beat you and you ask the good players in your group to target them. All you care about is selling some coaching videos and making money from poker that is gtd in doing so, you therefore manipulate new players learning the game into doing your bidding. Like some ancient labour union block vote.

yes

and with regards to ur re edit i think a smaller sample and smaller increase in RB may be better at lower stakes. I think if you made it pending rematchs instead of 10 games over the course of the month then it would encourage behaviour that isnt already taking place instead of shipping everyone a few extra ffps for something that would have happened anyway.

You obviously are a bit of an authority on the last few years evolution on HU SNG games. Also you draw attention to a valid point, the coaching. SO HOW ON EARTH DO POKERSTARS BRING SOMEONE IN WHO IS CLEARLY BIASED AND NOT INDEPENDENT. Sure people on this forum voted him, his bloody customers did. Absolute farce. INDEPENDENT research please pokerstars.

I normally wouldn't respond but if you are going to use a personal attack to try and devalue my argument I guess I have to.

I have no financial interest in the lobbies changing to any system, I would make just as much money in a battlenet system as I would the current and my profits far exceed the cost of sharky so it has little effect on me.

Maybe I am not so strong a player, but in the last 4 months I have played more regs than anyone else at high stakes. When a reg sits me he will see nothin but the chadders0 name til he gives up, I have earned my right to share without a doubt. Go look at sharkscope for proof if you need.

I haven't produced a video for husng.com in maybe 6 months or so, and have done only a handful of coaching hours this year, none in the last 2 months.

Would be far better if people would try to refute the logical fallacies in arguments rather than engaging in pointless ad hominem attacks.

What did you say about my mama?

On:
Time will tell if a new lobby will be better
But it seems how it is now its not getting better only ugly'r

Sharky may have been around for 2 years but it had a boom around 6 months ago with more and more people finding out about it. Only a few players new about it prior to then, it was almost a well kept secret until people started talking about it and complaining then more and more people used it.

The turbo lobby needs work, how can you only have 1 lobby for a stake????

I'd think if Chadders was just trying to capitalize on coaching and video sales, he would be in favor of a system that built the most amount of regs with the lowest bar for success (IE, lots of moderate success regs and bum hunting ability).

You know, sort of like the current system of HUSNGs.

i also think a matchmaking system would decourage rematching for rec players even further, since its just one button click to play a random new opponent.


so i really, REALLY think giving out very small rewards for low amount of rematches in a row would be very very good for this

what is wrong with pointing out that pokerstars met up with a non independent from a forum sponsored by HUSNG?

I normally wouldn't respond but if you are going to use a personal attack to try and devalue my argument I guess I have to. Chadders 9th July 2013

Who are you trying to fool? For years you have been one of the most obnoxious and arrogant heads up players on pokerstars. Now in the last few weeks you are trying to rebrand yourself. You aint fooling nobody.

I am all for pokerstars doing independent research, such as emailing a questionnaire to say any player who has played over 100 HUSNG in a month, then a different one to people who have played a few HUSNG in a month. That way you get unbiased opinions of all players and not some block vote bias.

I am not known for directly attacking any other heads up players here. (unless they initiate it). I will be affected whether it be for the better or worse by any changes. I am simply pointing out how flawed the research is when you have players who are not independent. As a player who is not a bum hunter, is not affiliated to any 3rd party poker site/forum my views are more relevant than somebody biased like chadders or someone else at HUSNG.com. I will never sell my soul for a pint or two of beer and some slices of pizza.

Chadders did not propose battlenet at the meetings, he proposed a different system I believe but PS made their case for battlenet and he bought in.

PokerStrategy also had a representative at the meetings, Jossel.

And lastly, Punterz, I think you agree that battlenet, whether people like it or not, would make it harder to be a reg in HUSNGs, correct? If that's the case, then Chadders "bias" you're calling him out on, how could it be possible if his bias has the goal of supposedly selling more coaching and videos? He'd have less of a customer base to sell to by supporting your opinion of how things should be in the lobby.

It's fine to attack the idea he supports, but please do so with arguments against the idea, rather than just trying to make anything up to insult the guy. I can't see how battlenet promotes any biased agenda you're giving Chadders with regards to my website. So please leave it out of your posts (or back up the accusation with a reason).

No doubt you are also affiliated with HUSNG.com? Are you one of the players who chadders calls on to gang up on regs who are beating him?