ur way better at analogies than me but this is pretty much the point i was trying to make.

I think there shouldn't be infinite hu tables. Its much worse for poker overall. Yes it ends up being better for individual short-sighted 'bumhunters'- however it is likely those people will one day get better and possibly apply some logic and realize why its much better overall if there is a capped number of tables (cap should be 4 non-playing tables, and new tables are opened when 2ppl sit and play for 10min or w/e).

A lot of people play poker for enjoyment. They don't mind giving up a little edge in order to have fun, however they don't like when they feel taken advantage of (by say 15ppl sitting hu waiting for them). If those people who play for enjoyment are happier I feel far less bad taking money from them, and i also am likely to recieve a larger sum, seems like a good deal all around (because they likely don't care about the money anywhere near as much as the amount of enjoyment they get).

Partly for reasons mentioned above, and partly b/c i can be an ******* at times, if i'm on a site with a capped number of hu tables, i will sit every table, and people can get up or play. If I happen to know someone and not dislike them, i will sometimes leave them a table as a 'small favor' of sorts- but imo they shouldnt expect this. For numerous reasons i feel like this is the best overall arrangement- and back when there were people i'd sitout to, i would always insta-leave the table (i'll still do this at o8 if asked to, which has happened recently).

Btw a semi-related situation:

recently @ 2k4k o8 when there were only 2 tables available:

I was sitting hu with player A- probably losing a little money but w/e, expensive lessons yo. My room service came and i was sitting out for 2min. Player B asked me if i could get up from 1 of the tables so he could play (we were in the same hotel for a tournament- so same ip addy). If the game was player A, B, and me, i would quit some decent % of the time (and play sometimes). If it was me and player B i would almost never play hu o8 (im sooooo bad @ it).

I thought it was super standard no-brainer for me to get up (altho im sure B wouldnt have asked if he didnt see me sitting out b/c he is pretty careful about etiquette). If he had asked for both tables, i think giving both would be a better decision then giving 0 (i would give 1 everytime tho and tell him to get a job).

Hope that helps some

u would be the only person to agree w/ me on this.

lol are you smoking crack?

lol...my god durrrr's head is so big it's going to explode...poker wise its justified, but how can u be so blatantly selfish as to suggest something so stupid? since i am durrrr, and i feel i have an edge on all opponants, there should only be 4 tables, and if i dont like the 4 ppl, i will claim all tables...

get a clue and get out of your bubble...what would be best would be infinite tables that are controlled by the site to keep people from sitting at 5 tables of the exact same game alone..

I agree w/durrrr that capped tables are a good thing, and if people practice proper etiquette (like stuff you should have learned in kindergarten) it can work just fine:

-If you know nobody wants to play you, don't take all the tables (learn to share!)

-If someone wants to play and you don't, get up and let them play (don't be a selfish douche!)

And then... omg! We can all get along without having lobbies stacked full of 1/2's that suck for fish and piss off any regular looking to get a game going without sitting & bumhunting all day.

i don't have any place in HSNL other than lurking (though fwiw i agree with 99% that the willing player gets the table), but i just have to call out how extremely lol this statement is, and what a mindless, sweeping, brutally inaccurate, and undoubtedly highly self-serving generalization it is.

suppose it makes sense that nobody has called it out b/c people who post on this forum tend to be v good at poker, but i mean come on man

i actually kind of misinterpreted this and figured u'd sit at all the empty tables and not let people play which you probably would be but it's kind of different. if you just want to get a table i can see this being the fastest method.

i don't see a need to sit more than 1 table, also as long as i have that one table, i don't see a need to clog anyone else's. However imo it wouldn't be that dick for me to do, because imo 'bumhunting' is bad for poker, and bad for the overall happiness of people in poker, while also bad for my wallet (if bumhunters played me i obv think i'd have more $$).

Me playing everyone however, is good for poker, better for the overall happiness of people who play poker, and i would like to think still good for my wallet.

Obv most people that are sitting hu i would choose not to sit w/ etc since i know they arent going to play etc yaddayadda... however anyone thinking its their right to have 1 of a limited number of tables, while anyone is online who they wont play is bat**** crazy imo. i would consider it unnecessary, and probably not the best idea for someone to hog all the hu tables at one site just becuase no-one will play them hu, however its probably better for poker overall, and its better for their wallet... and those 2 things are pretty tough to argue w/ imo.

edit: btw i don't think ive ever taken all the tables at a site except when some idiot was doing something i considered improper etiquette or if they had acted pretty unethically in some way. That said, its in ub's best interest to let me do it imo, and currently they would, and id probably make a few more $$s if i just sat at all of them nonstop (btw im using my name instead of many other ppl's you could insert instead), so its pretty tough for some rando 'bumhunter' (which is a poor term choice but w/e) to think they deserve a table just b/c they were there 1st and want to find fish, unless they have a tunnel visioned view of the world (which unfortunately most people happen to have).

you took that line wrong... most people in the poker world i would do the small favor of not sitting their table, however them expecting me to do that or thinking they deserve that table etc is pretty wrong imo.

edit: i would standard get up generally with someone i didnt know who asked for the table, but if they annoyed me or w/e, i think its perfectly fine for me to say post or leave and sit all their tables. Its allowed in site rules of some sites, it should be allowed in site rules of all sites (b/c its good for the sites + for poker), and i'd probably make $$ from it.

btw blocking tables is obv bad for sites, and if you did this regularly, im sure they would find some way of not allowing it, and side with the person who clicked the post button.

if you dont like what i'm cooking get the **** out of my kitchen

its as simple as that

So what happens when someone like Durrrr chooses to sit at all the hu tbls at a site that has capped hu tbls and no regular will play him because he is Durrrr and he has to "bumhunt" himself as only fish will sit. But if Joe hu regular sits he will still get action from all the fish that will play Durrr but also from some other regs that think they have an edge on him and he thinks otherwise and a game gets started. Seems to me that if only the very best players occupy the hu tables that it actually may not be good for poker overall. What part of my logic is flawed?

how could durr be bumhunting if he will play anyone? are you even thinking about this or just arguing?

What I meant by that was that he'd end up only playing fish because none of the regulars would sit with him. That's why I put bumhunt in quotes.

I agree with the people that say the person who wants to play should get the table.

I also think that it's very bad behavior to occupy all the tables and not good for poker at all. Way less matches would occur if everyone only had the choice of playing against one of the best in the world or not playing at all at a particular limit compared to having the choice of playing other players too.
The only person it would be good for is the one occupying all the tables. I expect the fish to have more fun when they don't get crushed that badly and they also last longer

For you guys who missed this thread in NVG the first time here is a link to the thread about CarlDenStore and heliga_ak on ongame which started out with EXACTLY this problem of them refusing action and people getting tired of it.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...ongame-299453/

Even if that was true, the fact is that Durrrr is not bumhunting because he would play anyone. If only fish decide to play, that's just what happens, not because Durrrr's intention was to only play fish.

And you're obviously wrong in your first sentence anyways, since we've recently seen Ansky, Sauce, and a few others play durrrr HU in the past few months, and they are obviously very good players.

I'm not so sure about this. It would certainly need some additions to the idea, such as a waiting list for the uncreated tables. Actually, that could be all it needs. Oh, and that might it tough to get the tables if you organize a 3 table match or whatever. The 10 minute wait will also cause problems at the lower limits where demand is greater.

Personally I'd go for infinite tables with each person only allowed a max of one empty table with 1 BI or less stack, and the site auto closing any of the extra tables after 90 seconds or whatever. Perhaps it should be 1.1 BI or whatever.

The problem with the OP is that, while it's pretty clear he should be leaving the table in these circumstances, it's also clear that if you back people into a corner like this they're not going to choose the ethical route (assuming the unethical route is too unethical).

Everyone is entitled to sit at any amount of heads up tables playing and then 1 free one to get action. On Full Tilt I think sitting at 1 deep and 1 regular is also acceptable.

If the site caps the number of tables and that 1 free one is not available to you, then you can either play the better player willing to take it and get better or you don't get to play at all.

As someone who gets no action from any of the regulars except the really good players this can get somewhat frustrating, but that is on me. I can either play the better players or sit in the corner and cry. To some players I am the fish, oh well I am a big boy I'll get over it.

I also think capped amount of tables is better than infinite.

durrrr's logic here is pretty terrible....if you notice he justifies things constantly as being 'good for poker' (cough cough, 'good for my wallet')....full tilt has already emailed me telling me not to sit with someone because i blocked their tables when i was pissed off...and the more i thought about it, the more right they are...they don't want to run a site where people are running around in pissing contests doing that kind of stuff...this is what obviously would result with capped number of tables...the problem with infinite tables as of late is people have become short sighted and relatively dumb to their own cause...everyone should just sit at 1 or 2 tables of a game...if this ends up being 10 different people, than so be it, that's just the state of the poker economy, but as those people stop getting games, it should self adjust..

bumhunting really isn't particularly bad to the sites bottom line compared to what durrrr offers...the same fish will lose their money, just in his case it's always to him...now one fish chooses between 10 players and often ends up going to 6max to not feel screwed (which i like) or they just randomly choose someone...as there are so many ppl waiting now, you can go forever without a game, and will end up at 6m eventually when you realize this...either way, the fish lose their money..


as an aside, i really haven't seen that many heads up matches between durrrr, jman, urindanger, and trex lately....while i know that it's least likely to be durrrr's choice of the 4, they do seem to all mutually accept this, and I am sure most of them are happy about this...they do the same sh*# at the highest stakes, so none of them should whine at all about it lower..

players need to actually just try and respect the game and each other and not act so di** in the first place and things will calm down...i have posted in the past about how the heads up games have gotten, and frankly, they have gotten bad...but people will eventually stop sitting there when they get no hands anyway....until then, show some respect for people, sit at just one or two tables, dont go around blocking people, and hope UB uncaps their tables so this immature crap ends..

Agame18, hu 4 rollz?

agree x5million

awesome

bumhunters deserve zero deference, they are the leeches of the poker world

If I am not playing a single hand at a live game because I don't like who's sitting at the table, I'd be told to leave.

I don't see why online should be any different.

Just because you're too chicken**** to play better players or get better, doesn't mean the rest of the world should accommodate your sorry ass. The online poker sites don't exist just so you could find more fish. They are in it to make money... if you won't play, get off the god damn table.