Quote:
Originally Posted by PlsFold
Pokerstars Nick,
In this thread about so called "game creators" you confirm that
Quote:
Originally Posted by balrog
there is nothing wrong with playing heads-up at a table that supports more than 2 players, and leaving when the table fills - so long as you pay your fair share of blinds in the process.
If I should follow the game creators logic there would be no tables running at all if they were banned. It is of course the recreational player whos the game creator.
Is it wrong if these "game creators" refuse game creating with the vast majority sitting in as the second player?
If this isnt acceptable, what will you do about it?
The responses in that thread were specifically about blind abuse as it relates to players who play on 6max or Full Ring tables as the tables fill and empty.
We have a software feature that we plan to release in the next few months to address the issue of players who are sitting at a table and aren't willing to play with others who sit with them. The basic premise is that we will limit the number of non-dealing tables in the lobby, requiring you to play with the players at that limit who are willing to play, if you want to sit at a table at that limit. Additionally we plan to remove the ability to sit out at a table that is not dealing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlsFold
I have myself reported at least 20 crystal clear violations by everyday anglers/grimmers/table campers/waitlist spammers, only to see them the next day doing the exactly same thing over and over.
The list of "anglers/grimmers/table campers/waitlist spammers" includes behavior where our response ranges from no action to permanent bans. While I cannot comment on individual cases, if you report a player for behavior that we take action against, the initial action will likely be a warning. Then, depending on the offence, subsequent violations will result in being barred from the site.
In addition, we have recently committed to taking swifter and more severe action against players that break our Ring Games rules.
Practically speaking, very rarely do we run across repeat blind abuse offenders. One reason for the difference in our experience and player perception is that it can take a while for a complaint or proactive identification via report to be investigated. We try to investigate within a week and often do so more quickly, but it can at times take longer.
Players may send in multiple complaints about the same player prior to the first complaint being reviewed and acted upon. Once we warn the offending player, we would need an additional incident after that point in order to take action.
If these players have persisted in their behavior beyond a week or two past the initial report, have you reported them again?
If you feel you have reported players for whom appropriate action has not been taken in line with the above explanation, I would very much appreciate it if you would PM Nick both your userid and the offending player’s userid so that he can review our performance.
Slow Players
We do currently analyze the playing speed of every player on the site once a month and adjust the Table Cap of players who act very quickly and very slowly who play a large number of tables on average.
This will naturally only affect players who play a large number of tables as we have generally thought of as the cause of the bulk of the slow play issues, but from what some of you have said in this thread, maybe that isn't as much the case in LHE.
Making any changes to table speed is not a decision we would take lightly, and we very recently changed the speed of the vast majority of our tables. Any loss of decision time has historically been loudly complained about in the forums, but if a large enough group of people think there is too much time to act in our Limit Hold’em games at present, we will look into the issue.
Waiting Lists
We don't currently have any plans to change waiting list behavior, but as we are hearing many more complaints these days, we're starting to look at options.
Any descriptions of specific problems you see (as some of you have done already) are always very helpful, as are suggestions for changes.
We are not likely to add additional manual checks of sitting out behavior over and above what we have already implemented, but we are open to software solutions that address any widespread issues.
In general, we greatly prefer software solutions that prevent the issue from occurring rather than retroactively punishing players for negative behavior after the fact. This is both because of resource issues and because it’s a much better customer experience for all involved, including offending parties and their opponents.
Limit Hold'em Promotions
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerStars Steve
Regarding Limit hold'em promotions specifically, we did follow through on our committment during the player meetings. We committed to hold a SuperStar Showdown type match at LHE. We spent quite a lot of time trying to match players up, but in the end had to ask Daniel to play just to get a single match in because we couldn't find willing opponents otherwise. Even after the first match we were trying to find willing opponents for another one, but we were unable to do so.
If Omaha week is successful, you're likely to see similar weeks in the future featuring other games. Limit hold'em would be near or at the front of the line of other games to be promoted. It might well have been first, but the timing was right for an Omaha week due to the release of 5 Card Omaha and Courchevel. In any case, hopefully these promotions will go well and every game will get its turn.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...l#post37719052
The PLO week was judged to be a success. We’ll very likely have a LHE week before too long. I can’t provide any kind of timeline as to when, as our promotional schedules change quite frequently. I can tell you that it is on our current calendar for a specific week, but a high percentage of promotions end up running at a different time that originally planned.