Help Me Improve the Games on Pokerstars
Dear Pokerstars Steve,
I don't know if this is Stars' stance or not, but it's naive and incorrect to look at the amount of rake bumhunters contribute and then conclude that they are valued customers.
Here's why:
In Stars' ideal universe, only breakeven players would deposit and no one would ever withdraw. Everyone's money would smoothly be channeled to the house as rake, and people would periodically redeposit. This maximizes the house's take. Call this Stars' Paradise.
This doesn't actually happen because of variance and because of differences in skill. There exist winning players who actually withdraw more money than they deposit into the poker economy. Now since poker is a game of skill, somehow getting rid of the winners now isn't going to help Stars in the slightest, since the most skilled current fish will just become winners- some people are going to be winners and some losers with any uneven skill distribution unless the rake is extremely high. It is in Stars' interest to have as many players as close to breakeven as possible with low variance games so that the real world is as close to Stars' Paradise as humanly possible.
So on this analysis Stars' most valued non net depositors (aka fish) are nearly breakeven regulars - if someone has to win at least Stars wants them to win as little as possible and play a lot of hands and contribute a lot of rake.
There are three exceptions to this rule though. The first is the highstakes player. Highstakes players (reg or fish) bring observers to the site and attract new depositors to the game of poker- so they are more valuable to the room than their bare rake would indicate.
The second exception are action players. People who gambool it up and play a flashy, loose-aggressive style are more exciting to play with. It's also difficult to determine whether they are net winners or losers, attracting both fish and regulars to play with them.
The third and most important exception are game starters/game maintainers. Collectively, this just means non-bumhunters. Brick and mortar casinos habitually pay prop players to start games, and when they don't have to pay props this is because there are enough regulars in the casino running exciting games that people want to play that the props aren't necessary. This is just as true online- regs start the games hu and the recreational players browse the lobby and decide to jump in.
Back to bumhunters:
So, Stars can't get rid of winning regulars as much as it might like to. Stars would prefer its regs are breakeven, exciting, and continuously start games. The primary service on top of paying rake which winners do for Stars is act as unpaid prop players and as entertainers for recreational players.
Bumhunters do none of these things and act only as parasites on Stars and Stars' players. They contribute less rake than others, refuse to start games, and leave games when others have started them as soon as the game is not incredibly profitable. Stars should not cater to their interests, at least from a business perspective.
I don't know if this is Stars' stance or not, but it's naive and incorrect to look at the amount of rake bumhunters contribute and then conclude that they are valued customers.
Here's why:
In Stars' ideal universe, only breakeven players would deposit and no one would ever withdraw. Everyone's money would smoothly be channeled to the house as rake, and people would periodically redeposit. This maximizes the house's take. Call this Stars' Paradise.
This doesn't actually happen because of variance and because of differences in skill. There exist winning players who actually withdraw more money than they deposit into the poker economy. Now since poker is a game of skill, somehow getting rid of the winners now isn't going to help Stars in the slightest, since the most skilled current fish will just become winners- some people are going to be winners and some losers with any uneven skill distribution unless the rake is extremely high. It is in Stars' interest to have as many players as close to breakeven as possible with low variance games so that the real world is as close to Stars' Paradise as humanly possible.
So on this analysis Stars' most valued non net depositors (aka fish) are nearly breakeven regulars - if someone has to win at least Stars wants them to win as little as possible and play a lot of hands and contribute a lot of rake.
There are three exceptions to this rule though. The first is the highstakes player. Highstakes players (reg or fish) bring observers to the site and attract new depositors to the game of poker- so they are more valuable to the room than their bare rake would indicate.
The second exception are action players. People who gambool it up and play a flashy, loose-aggressive style are more exciting to play with. It's also difficult to determine whether they are net winners or losers, attracting both fish and regulars to play with them.
The third and most important exception are game starters/game maintainers. Collectively, this just means non-bumhunters. Brick and mortar casinos habitually pay prop players to start games, and when they don't have to pay props this is because there are enough regulars in the casino running exciting games that people want to play that the props aren't necessary. This is just as true online- regs start the games hu and the recreational players browse the lobby and decide to jump in.
Back to bumhunters:
So, Stars can't get rid of winning regulars as much as it might like to. Stars would prefer its regs are breakeven, exciting, and continuously start games. The primary service on top of paying rake which winners do for Stars is act as unpaid prop players and as entertainers for recreational players.
Bumhunters do none of these things and act only as parasites on Stars and Stars' players. They contribute less rake than others, refuse to start games, and leave games when others have started them as soon as the game is not incredibly profitable. Stars should not cater to their interests, at least from a business perspective.
EDIT: thought I'd elaborate more but don't think its worth it.Point is that your argument really even isn't one.
Haha unfortunately they just gave it up (the hsnl sickos pretending to care about the site). For a minute i was thinking this was for the good for the games and for stars. However last few posts made me realise that the true purpose of this thread is actually for the 0.001% of you to improve your earnings tenfold.
You did so well for so long aswell guys! Sauce Kanu Ecart etc
You did so well for so long aswell guys! Sauce Kanu Ecart etc
I guess i'm somewhat in the middle between a bumhunter and a sicko like you guys. But when i read sauce's post it looks really self centered to me. Funny thing is that most of the arguments you use also apply on big winners. Stars getting rid of the nanonanko's and sauce's will lso keep more money in the poker eonomy
I do however think it would be out of line for Stars to ban me from the site in virtue of winning a lot even if I was a liability to their bottom line- I don't think it would be very attractive to a recreational player to play somewhere whose policy is: "come play with us unless you happen to win! Then get lost!"
I think the hu lobby should be eliminated or reduced to a handful of open tables, maybe 1-5 as a first guess. If we decide to keep the hu lobby, there should be less possible open tables at higher limits to reflect the smaller player pool- maybe one at 200/400, and 15 or more at .25/.50. There should also be an option to request a hu match via the client, I don't care exactly which version of that idea gets adopted- I think a suitable one would be if both players asked for a hu match with each other but each player's request isn't available to the other player to see (to discourage bumhunters from deluging fish with hu requests).
Some people just like playing hu better, and some of those people are fish. I don't see a reason to categorically deny them a place to play their game of choice and drive them away from Pokerstars. So, to start games with the fish who want to play hu we might need a small hu lobby per limit.
On a different tack, I think deep hu poker is the best form of poker- it's the most exciting and contains the most interesting strategy. Eliminating the best form of poker (imo) in order to husband the poker economy a bit better just isn't worth it. Reasonable people might disagree though.
I'm curious why people think my arguments are "self-centered". If I make a (logically) sound argument whose conclusion happens to be to recommend a course of action which increases my personal EV, then does that make my argument wrong? That would mean I'm only permitted to argue for conclusions which aren't in my best interest or are neutral to me. Or is it that my conclusion is somehow suspect because it might be of personal benefit? That sort of statement is just obviously crazy. So if I've made a mistake(s) (and I probably have) in my recommendations please show me where I have gone wrong and I'll try to correct myself.
Haha unfortunately they just gave it up (the hsnl sickos pretending to care about the site). For a minute i was thinking this was for the good for the games and for stars. However last few posts made me realise that the true purpose of this thread is actually for the 0.001% of you to improve your earnings tenfold.
You did so well for so long aswell guys! Sauce Kanu Ecart etc
You did so well for so long aswell guys! Sauce Kanu Ecart etc
I'm curious why people think my arguments are "self-centered". If I make a (logically) sound argument whose conclusion happens to be to recommend a course of action which increases my personal EV, then does that make my argument wrong? That would mean I'm only permitted to argue for conclusions which aren't in my best interest or are neutral to me. Or is it that my conclusion is somehow suspect because it might be of personal benefit? That sort of statement is just obviously crazy. So if I've made a mistake(s) (and I probably have) in my recommendations please show me where I have gone wrong and I'll try to correct myself.
And as most of you think all bumhunters(at least 90% of them) are really bad then its good to keep them around for Stars, because their winrate against fish is smaller thus more hands played till fish busto thus more rake.
Overall its seems stupid to decrease the player pool to increase volume(and thats what all of you high stakes regs are claiming to actually want).None of which you said makes the games better for majority of players and isn't in favour of PokerStars pretty much in contrary they'll gather less rake if they go a long with KOtH or something similar.
Explain how having only top regs play against fish increases volume?Or how having 100 bumhunters instead of 20 can decrease volume?That is what you are saying.KOtH won't make regs play regs, stop with that argument all the near proof stuff we have about KOtH is that it just kills all the action.
And as most of you think all bumhunters(at least 90% of them) are really bad then its good to keep them around for Stars, because their winrate against fish is smaller thus more hands played till fish busto thus more rake.
Overall its seems stupid to decrease the player pool to increase volume(and thats what all of you high stakes regs are claiming to actually want).None of which you said makes the games better for majority of players and isn't in favour of PokerStars pretty much in contrary they'll gather less rake if they go a long with KOtH or something similar.
And as most of you think all bumhunters(at least 90% of them) are really bad then its good to keep them around for Stars, because their winrate against fish is smaller thus more hands played till fish busto thus more rake.
Overall its seems stupid to decrease the player pool to increase volume(and thats what all of you high stakes regs are claiming to actually want).None of which you said makes the games better for majority of players and isn't in favour of PokerStars pretty much in contrary they'll gather less rake if they go a long with KOtH or something similar.
As I already pointed out in one of my earlier posts:
The reality of the situation is it clearly isn't as important an issue to them as they make it out to be. If they were allocating more (or perhaps just more of the proper) resources toward fixing it, it would be fixed.
Some additional food for thought. If their license was contingent on maintaining the integrity of the games to the point it included stopping the activity of tracking sites, Stars would have fixed the problem yesterday. As it stands now there's simply no impetus for them to do anything beyond whatever it is they supposedly are doing. As it stands now, it's more of a problem they'll perhaps get around to fixing one of these days, but I've given up believing it's a matter of any importance to them.
Some additional food for thought. If their license was contingent on maintaining the integrity of the games to the point it included stopping the activity of tracking sites, Stars would have fixed the problem yesterday. As it stands now there's simply no impetus for them to do anything beyond whatever it is they supposedly are doing. As it stands now, it's more of a problem they'll perhaps get around to fixing one of these days, but I've given up believing it's a matter of any importance to them.
Explain how having only top regs play against fish increases volume?Or how having 100 bumhunters instead of 20 can decrease volume?That is what you are saying.KOtH won't make regs play regs, stop with that argument all the near proof stuff we have about KOtH is that it just kills all the action.
And as most of you think all bumhunters(at least 90% of them) are really bad then its good to keep them around for Stars, because their winrate against fish is smaller thus more hands played till fish busto thus more rake.
Overall its seems stupid to decrease the player pool to increase volume(and thats what all of you high stakes regs are claiming to actually want).None of which you said makes the games better for majority of players and isn't in favour of PokerStars pretty much in contrary they'll gather less rake if they go a long with KOtH or something similar.
And as most of you think all bumhunters(at least 90% of them) are really bad then its good to keep them around for Stars, because their winrate against fish is smaller thus more hands played till fish busto thus more rake.
Overall its seems stupid to decrease the player pool to increase volume(and thats what all of you high stakes regs are claiming to actually want).None of which you said makes the games better for majority of players and isn't in favour of PokerStars pretty much in contrary they'll gather less rake if they go a long with KOtH or something similar.
-I think most bumhunters have a higher winrate against fish than me fwiw. Recreational players are generally unpredictable and don't play in a similar way. And because I spend most of my time multitabling regulars when I play HU, I'm not particularly specialized in taking down recreational players whereas bumhunters play fish ~100% of the time and thus have more experience and should be more specialized in exploiting them.
I'm sure you'll come up with whatever nonsense counters again. A couple of you don't think the system where 90% of people don't play eachother and wait for the bottom 10% should be changed, which is ridiculous. You're the ones acting purely in your own selfinterest shutting down any sort of HU idea, because you don't want to work hard and compete with tougher people or because you don't think you'll be able to improve for whatever reason and thus be forced to lose or quit.
2) Logging in. Full Tilt used to have the option to choose your email
address instead of your username to login. This should enhance the
security of player's accounts that choose this. People know the
usernames, but it's harder to guess the email addresses of players.
On top of that it'd be great if the software didn't automatically save
the username. I prefer to just fill it in everytime. Not a huge
difference, but again a slight improvement to security.
address instead of your username to login. This should enhance the
security of player's accounts that choose this. People know the
usernames, but it's harder to guess the email addresses of players.
On top of that it'd be great if the software didn't automatically save
the username. I prefer to just fill it in everytime. Not a huge
difference, but again a slight improvement to security.
bump btw. Decent security improvement and supereasy to do. Nobrainer, right?
Right. I think (at least for now, I hope someone changes my mind) that Stars shouldn't cater to my interests a particularly large amount, at least relative to other players who are at least as valuable or more valuable to them. I do however play a pretty laggy style and start a ton of games at high stakes for the room, so I don't see myself as some kind of liability from Stars' perspective at all either.
I do however think it would be out of line for Stars to ban me from the site in virtue of winning a lot even if I was a liability to their bottom line- I don't think it would be very attractive to a recreational player to play somewhere whose policy is: "come play with us unless you happen to win! Then get lost!"
I think the hu lobby should be eliminated or reduced to a handful of open tables, maybe 1-5 as a first guess. If we decide to keep the hu lobby, there should be less possible open tables at higher limits to reflect the smaller player pool- maybe one at 200/400, and 15 or more at .25/.50. There should also be an option to request a hu match via the client, I don't care exactly which version of that idea gets adopted- I think a suitable one would be if both players asked for a hu match with each other but each player's request isn't available to the other player to see (to discourage bumhunters from deluging fish with hu requests).
Some people just like playing hu better, and some of those people are fish. I don't see a reason to categorically deny them a place to play their game of choice and drive them away from Pokerstars. So, to start games with the fish who want to play hu we might need a small hu lobby per limit.
On a different tack, I think deep hu poker is the best form of poker- it's the most exciting and contains the most interesting strategy. Eliminating the best form of poker (imo) in order to husband the poker economy a bit better just isn't worth it. Reasonable people might disagree though.
I'm curious why people think my arguments are "self-centered". If I make a (logically) sound argument whose conclusion happens to be to recommend a course of action which increases my personal EV, then does that make my argument wrong? That would mean I'm only permitted to argue for conclusions which aren't in my best interest or are neutral to me. Or is it that my conclusion is somehow suspect because it might be of personal benefit? That sort of statement is just obviously crazy. So if I've made a mistake(s) (and I probably have) in my recommendations please show me where I have gone wrong and I'll try to correct myself.
I do however think it would be out of line for Stars to ban me from the site in virtue of winning a lot even if I was a liability to their bottom line- I don't think it would be very attractive to a recreational player to play somewhere whose policy is: "come play with us unless you happen to win! Then get lost!"
I think the hu lobby should be eliminated or reduced to a handful of open tables, maybe 1-5 as a first guess. If we decide to keep the hu lobby, there should be less possible open tables at higher limits to reflect the smaller player pool- maybe one at 200/400, and 15 or more at .25/.50. There should also be an option to request a hu match via the client, I don't care exactly which version of that idea gets adopted- I think a suitable one would be if both players asked for a hu match with each other but each player's request isn't available to the other player to see (to discourage bumhunters from deluging fish with hu requests).
Some people just like playing hu better, and some of those people are fish. I don't see a reason to categorically deny them a place to play their game of choice and drive them away from Pokerstars. So, to start games with the fish who want to play hu we might need a small hu lobby per limit.
On a different tack, I think deep hu poker is the best form of poker- it's the most exciting and contains the most interesting strategy. Eliminating the best form of poker (imo) in order to husband the poker economy a bit better just isn't worth it. Reasonable people might disagree though.
I'm curious why people think my arguments are "self-centered". If I make a (logically) sound argument whose conclusion happens to be to recommend a course of action which increases my personal EV, then does that make my argument wrong? That would mean I'm only permitted to argue for conclusions which aren't in my best interest or are neutral to me. Or is it that my conclusion is somehow suspect because it might be of personal benefit? That sort of statement is just obviously crazy. So if I've made a mistake(s) (and I probably have) in my recommendations please show me where I have gone wrong and I'll try to correct myself.
Maybe the self centered part was harsh on you, but when you see two immediate support reactions from kanu and ecart (both players seem the top few %of hu players of their stakes to me), it seems that getting rid of the hu bumhunters will benefit you guys a lot. But i guess everyone reacts in this threat out of self interest.
Thing with getting tid of bum hunters is that stars is a poker site and want to cater to as many people as possible. I doubt they will be giving the marketing message that they only want a certain kind of customers.
Another idea. Why not allow for 2 or 3 empty hu tables in general. So everyone is forced to choose specific limits and game types. This immediately cleans the lobby a lot, you wont be having players sit on every limit on 2-4 to 50-100, playing only pure droolers on the high end. This way everyone gets a fair chance of hu action and specialist pure hu bumhunters taking in 20 empty hu tables will get cut back.
I love how my post, where I tried to explain that someone making an argument out of their self-interest in no way invalidates the argument itself, got replies from a few people stating that the only reason I said it was out of self-interest. Well no ****, Sherlock. All of you guys pointing out that the HS playeres are here to drive an agenda are acting as though this is some astute observation that needs to be brought to the attention of PokerStars, lest they might get manipulated by our wits. It's not, you guys are just stating the obvious, which has already been stated by a bunch of these HS guys where they go out of their way to write unnecessary disclaimers like "FWIW the KoTH would likely benefit me financially".
Here's an example of an argument that is not in my best interest, but which I think benefits PokerStars: RE: Screen name changes. I like the liberal attutide towards screen name changes on many of the European poker sites, because they allow me to be a big winner while maintaining my relative anonymity. However I think screen name changes would not be a good thing for PokerStars for more than a few reasons. One of the reasons people already mentioned, is that it makes detection of collusion harder. I think an even bigger reason is that the idolization of certain players is a big draw for the recreational players as well. The reason PS is paying money for Isildur to run his heads-up challenges in PokerStars is because Isildur is the type of person who draws in crowds and makes others aspire for greatness.
One of the first things I remember learning about poker was from an episode of WSOP from ESPN where they point out that "Poker is the only game in the world, where anybody, no matter how inexperienced, can take their money and face off with the best in the world, and with a little bit of luck, they might even win!". Make no doubt, this is absolutely one of the reasons that makes poker such a fascinating game for the amateurs. It's the reason why there's a whole industry now dedicated towards idolizing the people who win tournaments or play high-stakes and do well. Being a successfull poker professional is a highly desireable job in the eyes of the masses, and rightly so. And for any position that is deemed as having high desireability, there is going to be a lot of people competing to achieve that position.
It's ridiculous to assume that the HS players who have paid their dues, worked hard and eventually prevailed, would be placed on the same line as people who are essentially receiving welfare from the sites, and then be out-voted because they are the minority. That's the ****ing point. Poker is supposed to be hard. If it wasn't, then the game loses a part of its magic. People want to look up to people like Isildur because he has no regard for money, is willing to battle anyone, at any stakes at seemingly any game, and yet he wins (at least periodically) a lot of money. He is the anti-thesis of a bumhunter, who are by now so used to getting their pay checks not through talent or hard work, but by exploiting an unsustainable system of ****ed up incentives, that their entitlement has reached a point where they somehow feel like they actually have something to say in this topic. If the system wasn't broken, there would be no need to even classify players to the three categories of regulars, bumhunters and the fish. Instead there would only exist the winners, the losers, and the competition (this is where the sites generate rake from) that decides who is a part of which.
Here's an example of an argument that is not in my best interest, but which I think benefits PokerStars: RE: Screen name changes. I like the liberal attutide towards screen name changes on many of the European poker sites, because they allow me to be a big winner while maintaining my relative anonymity. However I think screen name changes would not be a good thing for PokerStars for more than a few reasons. One of the reasons people already mentioned, is that it makes detection of collusion harder. I think an even bigger reason is that the idolization of certain players is a big draw for the recreational players as well. The reason PS is paying money for Isildur to run his heads-up challenges in PokerStars is because Isildur is the type of person who draws in crowds and makes others aspire for greatness.
One of the first things I remember learning about poker was from an episode of WSOP from ESPN where they point out that "Poker is the only game in the world, where anybody, no matter how inexperienced, can take their money and face off with the best in the world, and with a little bit of luck, they might even win!". Make no doubt, this is absolutely one of the reasons that makes poker such a fascinating game for the amateurs. It's the reason why there's a whole industry now dedicated towards idolizing the people who win tournaments or play high-stakes and do well. Being a successfull poker professional is a highly desireable job in the eyes of the masses, and rightly so. And for any position that is deemed as having high desireability, there is going to be a lot of people competing to achieve that position.
It's ridiculous to assume that the HS players who have paid their dues, worked hard and eventually prevailed, would be placed on the same line as people who are essentially receiving welfare from the sites, and then be out-voted because they are the minority. That's the ****ing point. Poker is supposed to be hard. If it wasn't, then the game loses a part of its magic. People want to look up to people like Isildur because he has no regard for money, is willing to battle anyone, at any stakes at seemingly any game, and yet he wins (at least periodically) a lot of money. He is the anti-thesis of a bumhunter, who are by now so used to getting their pay checks not through talent or hard work, but by exploiting an unsustainable system of ****ed up incentives, that their entitlement has reached a point where they somehow feel like they actually have something to say in this topic. If the system wasn't broken, there would be no need to even classify players to the three categories of regulars, bumhunters and the fish. Instead there would only exist the winners, the losers, and the competition (this is where the sites generate rake from) that decides who is a part of which.
One could argue that if the top echelon of stars regs got banned, then the bumhunters would become the regs and beat the fish slower, therefor increasing the rake paid and meaning the top players didnt get to take 7figs per year off the site.
Be careful how greedy you get..
Be careful how greedy you get..
Explain how having only top regs play against fish increases volume?Or how having 100 bumhunters instead of 20 can decrease volume?That is what you are saying.KOtH won't make regs play regs, stop with that argument all the near proof stuff we have about KOtH is that it just kills all the action.
And as most of you think all bumhunters(at least 90% of them) are really bad then its good to keep them around for Stars, because their winrate against fish is smaller thus more hands played till fish busto thus more rake.
Overall its seems stupid to decrease the player pool to increase volume(and thats what all of you high stakes regs are claiming to actually want).None of which you said makes the games better for majority of players and isn't in favour of PokerStars pretty much in contrary they'll gather less rake if they go a long with KOtH or something similar.
And as most of you think all bumhunters(at least 90% of them) are really bad then its good to keep them around for Stars, because their winrate against fish is smaller thus more hands played till fish busto thus more rake.
Overall its seems stupid to decrease the player pool to increase volume(and thats what all of you high stakes regs are claiming to actually want).None of which you said makes the games better for majority of players and isn't in favour of PokerStars pretty much in contrary they'll gather less rake if they go a long with KOtH or something similar.
ding ding ding. on top of that, look at the sharkscope and MTT history of almost all bumhunters. they contribute rake in other forms of poker and often aren't even profitable in those areas. pushing out mediocre players so that the recreational players are left to play only the absolute best on the site is not good for anyone but the best. which is why its so transparent that this is a selfishly motivated thread. you guys are among the top of the poker playing community and you think it will benefit you greatly to have fish back to yourselves without having them so thinly distributed among people you think are less deserving. there is a lobby issue, but all the ideas being put forward here are not solutions but rather ways to redistribute weak players money into fewer pockets. we get it.
Every time anyone makes the argument that people are all pushing for their self interest they are quick to quote like 5 people, yet there are far more than 5 people participating in this thread and pushing for changes. Surely a lot of these same people would be screwed over by a 5 table cap? By that logic, there must be some people in this thread that aren't acting in pure self interest and that simply believe that you should be willing to play if you are sitting. Poker skill is not some divine talent that you are born with. It can be learnt. You have the same opportunities to learn as sauce and ike. No one is telling you that you can't be the best and have a table in any changed scenario, they're just telling you that you have to work for it. And you don't like that. Can you explain why it's inherently unfair to end the free lunch for everyone sitting and waiting only for people who don't know a flush from a straight is? It's not discriminating against you specifically. It's simply setting an objective measure to sit and anyone can do it. Poker changes fast and today's top players may not be the same top players that exist in 6 months, but you don't see that possibility bothering anyone here because everyone that's arguing for changes actually wants to play poker and not to suck money exploiting the system.
I do think it's a bit of a domino effect. The more action there is, the more action is generates and the less action there is, the less action it generates. If you know that you can always get action if you take a shot at a tough player or a higher stake, then you're more likely to do it, but if you can't, you won't. Maybe some incentive at the top of the pyramid will kick start the lower levels.
very nice post kotkis, I think it says something when all the people advocating some positive changes are making well-thought out, articulate posts with reasoning as to how the solutions proposed will affect the games, sometimes saying that this isn't best for me but would be best overall etc and then a few bumhunters come in and throw some baseless accusations of self-interest because shock, horror, it turns out it's better for most regs to get rid of the leeches on the poker community that bumhunters are. Well done guys, everyone advocating the changes has already said it would be better for them to get rid of the bumhunters, they also say it would be better for the sites and the recreational players which is the part of the argument that the bumhunters conveniently ignore most of the time while laughing about the posts supposedly motivated purely by self-interest (as if this is even relevant, the validity of the points made is more important than the motivation for making the post).
I'm not sure if this is the right place for this but it's an idea that I've had floating around for a while and I think it would have a positive effect on the games as well as being an event in itself. Since Pokerstars Steve is monitoring this thread I'll suggest it here. How about holding a HU championship every year which spans over several months. My vision for it is that it is held at the highest stakes at which enough players will play it (probably 25/50 or 50/100) and each player will end up playing between 50k and 100k hands (preferably closer to 100k hands). Let's say 11 players enter, each player plays 10k hands vs each of the other 10 players and the player who ends up winning the most at the end is crowned the HU cash game champion of the world. If 6 players enter it would be 20k hands vs each player, or maybe less hands total etc. Obviously the details can be ironed out later on. A few points explaining how I'd see it working:
- each player pays an entry fee which goes into a prizepool which pays the top x players like a tournament
-each player has a certain amount escrowed with pokerstars which they forfeit a % of if they quit the championship. This is to ensure that nobody enters, loses 5 buy-ins and quits which would spoil the championship a bit. Maybe if it was at 25/50, you must have $125k set aside for the championship and you forfeit some of it if you quit before you lose the $125k.
-pokerstars adds money to the prizepool from the rake they make throughout the championship
-maybe there is some other incentive to win given by stars, a sponsorship deal for a year, entry to the wsop main event or something similar.
-a special page is set up on the pokerstars website where you can follow detailed results and see the league table of $$s won, interviews with the players etc.
-pokerstars schedules 2 or 3 2k hand matches for each player in the championship each week which the players must agree a time for at the start of the week. These matches will be on the webpage so that observers know when to log on to pokerstars to view these matches.
-as well as the scheduled matches, participants can play each other any time on the specified championship tables to speed up the championship. They may decide these in advance and put them on the website or just play whenever they find someone online.
- if someone is not keeping up with the pace of the others then he gets more scheduled matches the next week. For example, maybe everyone wants to play me but nobody wants to play sauce so sauce may need more scheduled matches
-I reckon expecting players to play around 10k hands a week would be good which would mean that the championship should take around 3 months bearing in mind that people may want to take the odd week off.
I think that this championship would generate a lot of excitement amongst observers and inspire people to want to get good and to play vs regs themselves. It would be the best test of ultimate poker skill anywhere and I think it fits in with pokerstars' image well and would be the natural site for this to happen on. If the tournament is successful then it could be done at lower stakes as well, maybe having a highstakes, midstakes and low stakes championship with tables with reduced rake at the lower stakes. A pokerstars sponsorship deal for the winner or something would also be a great prize for the lower stakes championships. I think a lot of the problem with the games at the moment is that a large % of the regs don't see poker as a competitive sport in which they want to get better, they just see it as competing for the fish money. I think this sort of championship could go some way to changing that attitude, especially if it comes along with some of the changes which encourage action that have been suggested in this thread. If the idea is popular then I'd be happy to speak to pokerstars about more details for the championship if they are interested.
- each player pays an entry fee which goes into a prizepool which pays the top x players like a tournament
-each player has a certain amount escrowed with pokerstars which they forfeit a % of if they quit the championship. This is to ensure that nobody enters, loses 5 buy-ins and quits which would spoil the championship a bit. Maybe if it was at 25/50, you must have $125k set aside for the championship and you forfeit some of it if you quit before you lose the $125k.
-pokerstars adds money to the prizepool from the rake they make throughout the championship
-maybe there is some other incentive to win given by stars, a sponsorship deal for a year, entry to the wsop main event or something similar.
-a special page is set up on the pokerstars website where you can follow detailed results and see the league table of $$s won, interviews with the players etc.
-pokerstars schedules 2 or 3 2k hand matches for each player in the championship each week which the players must agree a time for at the start of the week. These matches will be on the webpage so that observers know when to log on to pokerstars to view these matches.
-as well as the scheduled matches, participants can play each other any time on the specified championship tables to speed up the championship. They may decide these in advance and put them on the website or just play whenever they find someone online.
- if someone is not keeping up with the pace of the others then he gets more scheduled matches the next week. For example, maybe everyone wants to play me but nobody wants to play sauce so sauce may need more scheduled matches
-I reckon expecting players to play around 10k hands a week would be good which would mean that the championship should take around 3 months bearing in mind that people may want to take the odd week off.
I think that this championship would generate a lot of excitement amongst observers and inspire people to want to get good and to play vs regs themselves. It would be the best test of ultimate poker skill anywhere and I think it fits in with pokerstars' image well and would be the natural site for this to happen on. If the tournament is successful then it could be done at lower stakes as well, maybe having a highstakes, midstakes and low stakes championship with tables with reduced rake at the lower stakes. A pokerstars sponsorship deal for the winner or something would also be a great prize for the lower stakes championships. I think a lot of the problem with the games at the moment is that a large % of the regs don't see poker as a competitive sport in which they want to get better, they just see it as competing for the fish money. I think this sort of championship could go some way to changing that attitude, especially if it comes along with some of the changes which encourage action that have been suggested in this thread. If the idea is popular then I'd be happy to speak to pokerstars about more details for the championship if they are interested.
I would like to see a true KOTH ladder type system.
You can only challenge people who are a couple of places ahead of you in the ladder to play. If they reject you move up to their spot.
Fish/new players would start at the bottom of the ladder. This way their money would last longer which is clearly good for the poker economy.
Maybe Stars could even chip in a little 100$ bonus for being the King of the Hill. Wouldnt that be sweet?
You can only challenge people who are a couple of places ahead of you in the ladder to play. If they reject you move up to their spot.
Fish/new players would start at the bottom of the ladder. This way their money would last longer which is clearly good for the poker economy.
Maybe Stars could even chip in a little 100$ bonus for being the King of the Hill. Wouldnt that be sweet?
This is the highstakes forum insideman. I'm unsure exactly what the rake is like at lower stakes HU but I believe when you get down to a certain level it would indeed be very unfair to expect regs to play each other a lot as the rake is too high for almost anyone to win. I think the HU solutions proposed should maybe be implemented at high stakes first and then depending on what the solution is, could be considered for lower stakes too afterwards. Incidentally, it may be worth stars considering implementing some sort of system at lower stakes where you can challenge someone to a 3+ table HU match on the software and play on those tables with much lower rake. In some ways stars is the instigator of it's own downfall in the bumhunting issue because in order to move up through the stakes from lower stakes HU most people have to bumhunt because it is near impossible to play regs and overcome the rake even if you are good. Therefore there are lots of bumhunters moving up and they are unlikely to suddenly start playing regs when they get to high stakes. If you allowed multi-table challenges to happen (maybe calling the tables Player A vs Player B deathmatch 1 etc etc as someone else suggested to generate more interest, maybe allowing more observer chat or w/e else you think is good) with low rake then fish would still 1 table and stars can still take their current rake from those matches but it would create more action between regs which stars now gets some rake from rather than the none it got before and this would also ripple up through the stakes as more of the people moving up would have experience playing vs regs and would therefore be more willing to play regs at higher stakes.
The forcing 20 hands is probably not the ideal solution as there will be times where someone has been sitting waiting for action for 2 hours, leaves their PC for 10 mins and comes back to find they've lost 20 hands worth of blinds on 4 tables which seems a little unreasonable. Also, you may want to play HU and be sitting at HU tables but then have got 4-6 tables of 6max while you waited and then someone sits with you on a couple of tables at different limits. Normally you may say give me 5 mins to quit my 6max tables but now you would be forced to play more tables than you want to while you get yourself sorted. Having said all that I would personally still be happy to see it implemented because it is much better than the situation now. There are better options that have been suggested though imo.
The forcing 20 hands is probably not the ideal solution as there will be times where someone has been sitting waiting for action for 2 hours, leaves their PC for 10 mins and comes back to find they've lost 20 hands worth of blinds on 4 tables which seems a little unreasonable. Also, you may want to play HU and be sitting at HU tables but then have got 4-6 tables of 6max while you waited and then someone sits with you on a couple of tables at different limits. Normally you may say give me 5 mins to quit my 6max tables but now you would be forced to play more tables than you want to while you get yourself sorted. Having said all that I would personally still be happy to see it implemented because it is much better than the situation now. There are better options that have been suggested though imo.
If rake is lowered edges are bigger and regs can play each other, recreational players will play a lot more because they will win more and a lot of break even-ish players will play a lot more because of reduced rake and the community would be so much better off, this seems like the perfect solution and the next step forward.
It would also draw so much more heads up action to stars. Right now heads-up action on stars is pretty much dead obviously it would be so smart business wise for them to do this and draw in so many new players because of this. This altogether just makes so much sense, and the "challenge" way to do it is just perfect.
If stars wants to make a change for better this is it, some sort of variation of lowered rake heads up matches 3+ tables cash challenges for lower stakes heads up.
This is the definition of a WIN-WIN solution
Pokerstars STEVE please read this post and put some thought into it!
One could argue that if the top echelon of stars regs got banned, then the bumhunters would become the regs and beat the fish slower, therefor increasing the rake paid and meaning the top players didnt get to take 7figs per year off the site.
Be careful how greedy you get..
Be careful how greedy you get..
Originally Posted by Kanu
This is the highstakes forum insideman. I'm unsure exactly what the rake is like at lower stakes HU but I believe when you get down to a certain level it would indeed be very unfair to expect regs to play each other a lot as the rake is too high for almost anyone to win. I think the HU solutions proposed should maybe be implemented at high stakes first and then depending on what the solution is, could be considered for lower stakes too afterwards. Incidentally, it may be worth stars considering implementing some sort of system at lower stakes where you can challenge someone to a 3+ table HU match on the software and play on those tables with much lower rake. In some ways stars is the instigator of it's own downfall in the bumhunting issue because in order to move up through the stakes from lower stakes HU most people have to bumhunt because it is near impossible to play regs and overcome the rake even if you are good. Therefore there are lots of bumhunters moving up and they are unlikely to suddenly start playing regs when they get to high stakes. If you allowed multi-table challenges to happen (maybe calling the tables Player A vs Player B deathmatch 1 etc etc as someone else suggested to generate more interest, maybe allowing more observer chat or w/e else you think is good) with low rake then fish would still 1 table and stars can still take their current rake from those matches but it would create more action between regs which stars now gets some rake from rather than the none it got before and this would also ripple up through the stakes as more of the people moving up would have experience playing vs regs and would therefore be more willing to play regs at higher stakes.
The forcing 20 hands is probably not the ideal solution as there will be times where someone has been sitting waiting for action for 2 hours, leaves their PC for 10 mins and comes back to find they've lost 20 hands worth of blinds on 4 tables which seems a little unreasonable. Also, you may want to play HU and be sitting at HU tables but then have got 4-6 tables of 6max while you waited and then someone sits with you on a couple of tables at different limits. Normally you may say give me 5 mins to quit my 6max tables but now you would be forced to play more tables than you want to while you get yourself sorted. Having said all that I would personally still be happy to see it implemented because it is much better than the situation now. There are better options that have been suggested though imo.
+1 really good idea, please let this happen Stars
This is the highstakes forum insideman. I'm unsure exactly what the rake is like at lower stakes HU but I believe when you get down to a certain level it would indeed be very unfair to expect regs to play each other a lot as the rake is too high for almost anyone to win. I think the HU solutions proposed should maybe be implemented at high stakes first and then depending on what the solution is, could be considered for lower stakes too afterwards. Incidentally, it may be worth stars considering implementing some sort of system at lower stakes where you can challenge someone to a 3+ table HU match on the software and play on those tables with much lower rake. In some ways stars is the instigator of it's own downfall in the bumhunting issue because in order to move up through the stakes from lower stakes HU most people have to bumhunt because it is near impossible to play regs and overcome the rake even if you are good. Therefore there are lots of bumhunters moving up and they are unlikely to suddenly start playing regs when they get to high stakes. If you allowed multi-table challenges to happen (maybe calling the tables Player A vs Player B deathmatch 1 etc etc as someone else suggested to generate more interest, maybe allowing more observer chat or w/e else you think is good) with low rake then fish would still 1 table and stars can still take their current rake from those matches but it would create more action between regs which stars now gets some rake from rather than the none it got before and this would also ripple up through the stakes as more of the people moving up would have experience playing vs regs and would therefore be more willing to play regs at higher stakes.
The forcing 20 hands is probably not the ideal solution as there will be times where someone has been sitting waiting for action for 2 hours, leaves their PC for 10 mins and comes back to find they've lost 20 hands worth of blinds on 4 tables which seems a little unreasonable. Also, you may want to play HU and be sitting at HU tables but then have got 4-6 tables of 6max while you waited and then someone sits with you on a couple of tables at different limits. Normally you may say give me 5 mins to quit my 6max tables but now you would be forced to play more tables than you want to while you get yourself sorted. Having said all that I would personally still be happy to see it implemented because it is much better than the situation now. There are better options that have been suggested though imo.
Can we all agree with this, it seems like the perfect solution for everyone. Stars will earn more rake because of increased heads-up, new players, happier customers, people wanting to play more heads-up.
If rake is lowered edges are bigger and regs can play each other, recreational players will play a lot more because they will win more and a lot of break even-ish players will play a lot more because of reduced rake and the community would be so much better off, this seems like the perfect solution and the next step forward.
It would also draw so much more heads up action to stars. Right now heads-up action on stars is pretty much dead obviously it would be so smart business wise for them to do this and draw in so many new players because of this. This altogether just makes so much sense, and the "challenge" way to do it is just perfect.
If stars wants to make a change for better this is it, some sort of variation of lowered rake heads up matches 3+ tables cash challenges for lower stakes heads up.
This is the definition of a WIN-WIN solution
Pokerstars STEVE please read this post and put some thought into it!
If rake is lowered edges are bigger and regs can play each other, recreational players will play a lot more because they will win more and a lot of break even-ish players will play a lot more because of reduced rake and the community would be so much better off, this seems like the perfect solution and the next step forward.
It would also draw so much more heads up action to stars. Right now heads-up action on stars is pretty much dead obviously it would be so smart business wise for them to do this and draw in so many new players because of this. This altogether just makes so much sense, and the "challenge" way to do it is just perfect.
If stars wants to make a change for better this is it, some sort of variation of lowered rake heads up matches 3+ tables cash challenges for lower stakes heads up.
This is the definition of a WIN-WIN solution
Pokerstars STEVE please read this post and put some thought into it!
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...eport-1159145/
Hmm, the bumhunting of 25-50 and above will not go away by doubling the rake i guess...
Hmm, the bumhunting of 25-50 and above will not go away by doubling the rake i guess...
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...eport-1159145/
Hmm, the bumhunting of 25-50 and above will not go away by doubling the rake i guess...
Hmm, the bumhunting of 25-50 and above will not go away by doubling the rake i guess...
Huge waste of money and probably not even feasible. PTR was bought out by Zynga. Zynga wants to get into online poker in some as of yet to be determined way. It would cost Stars infinitely less money to just invest the resources into actually fixing the problem.
As I already pointed out in one of my earlier posts:
As I already pointed out in one of my earlier posts:
Zynga is obsessed with data, its how they make all of their decisions about games from features to colors to the placement of ads etc. I would imagine the PTR guys are working on those internal analytics for their poker game or perhaps for the company as a whole.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE