alefito6804

signed

I shouldn't really sign since I can't play on stars anymore, but I agree. The post from Pokerstars Steve in the OP is confusing to me. I'm not sure why anyone would have thought that changing the buy-in range for games would have prevented ratholing.

I also don't understand how this is a difficult problem for any site to deal with if they actually wanted to. Frequent ratholing is a very easily observed and recorded behavior that could be seen and disciplined either automatically or manually if there were rules against it.

there are two problems:

defining exactly what ratholing is. there are no solid indicators for this. the closer you get to the corner cases the more you will have to guess / draw arbitrary lines.

second is ..trade-offs. if there is no clean solution you have to weigh upsides/downsides. and for every upside you will find that there is a downside.

there may exist a solution that is clean. but likely not with how lobbies / player identities are implemented currently. still waiting for stars to send me the draft so i can go over it ;-)

I don't know about that. I understand what you're saying, but how hard could it really be to come up with some sort of definition and limit to ratholing after giving it a reasonable amount of thought? I'm pretty sure I could do that in under a day, and I'm sure there are lots of people that work for Stars that are quite a lot smarter than me.

Even if they didn't want to define ratholing and enforce rules against it, it also shouldn't be all that hard to prevent most of it in the first place if a site wanted to. If a table was min 40bb max 100bb, it could be made so that if someone closes out a table with between 40bb and 100bb then that amount would be queued and would be the minimum buyin for a new table for the next 15 minutes (or 30 or whatever) or until bought in, and amounts over 100bb would do the same, but with a 100bb min. If they want people to be able to do it a little bit, then they could start with a minbuy or two added to the top of their queue every so often.

That's probably flawed in some way, but that's just off the top of my head. I feel like it could have been ironed out pretty easily over the course of years...

Not being a dik face but why does it matter if people rathole zoom...it's zoom afterall. I have way more of an issue with people ratholing reg speed games of any variant, as it's like a true hit and run, I'd prefer to see more effort going into bishing over that than this.

signed

signed
**** rathole

lol petitions, those always work.

These trade offs were the same today as they were the day Stars said they'd have action put in place by said date.

Signed

Signed

Not saying regular tables don't need fixing as well, but Zoom is much worse. There's no ratholing timers at all and people can rejoin all day, driving the effective stacks down to a minimum. Rail Zoom PLO5k a few days and you'll see how the system is abused to the max by the best players in the world.

If you hate ratholing at regular tables, you should be even more opposed to it at Zoom. If not, you need to make some solid arguments as to why not.

this is very true.

could be that they have a good definition and thus a good mechanism to prevent ratholing and just don't want to implement it for some reason. but my money is on that they hit the wall because their lobbies / player identities are fundamentally broken. remember the old poker rule: one player to a hand? it reads ..exactly 1. not 2 and certainly not 1/3 or some other fraction.

Don't you realize that ratholers are already being punished at Zoom?
They're paying more blinds than any non ratholer player

I have nothing to complain against ratholing at Zoom, they're good for me and my winrate


EDIT : http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=3104
for those who are exceptical. I addressed that 2012 when Zoom started.

tits

signed

Well you know, I'm not at HS zoom, not that I don't care about the conditions of those games, but at 25PLO a lot of stack sizes are 100bb. Obv the player pool is waaaay bigger too so honestly I don't even notice if someone has ratholed especially as I'm on tree tables at once.

I SS and ratholed zoom 10PLO for a while (burn me at the stake ) but I was actually doing it for fun at the time and almost always BE. I've never SS or ratholed a reg speed game in my life though and never will.

Signed

signed

Signed.

The whole point of zoom is that you can leave and join at will. I cannot comment on the effect of rat holing on high stakes players, but from my perspective, I see no problem with a player leaving and rejoining with the buy in of their choice. Maybe with the huge player pool at lower stakes I cannot appreciate the problem fully.

That said many players want to be disciplined in the amount of risk they are taking. Even at a regular table, I will leave when effective stacks fall outside of my personal BR management rules. If they implemented something to prevent me from doing this on zoom, I would probably just take a break when the risk became to high, or play on another site when I wanted to limit my risk (or as many would put it rat holing). Nobody is ever forced to play.

I would like to ask the people signing this petition exactly what measure they want pokerstars to implement. At the end of the day you cannot ever force anyone to play with more money then they are willing to play with, and if you make the rules too strict, a lot of player will just take more breaks or play else-ware.

That said I find it a little ridiculous that they allow people to buy in for 40bb when there are games at lower stakes available to play.

My suggestion on how to fix this would be to make all zoom tables cap games, with 100bb stacks for everyone. The whole idea of varying stacks within zoom doesn't make sense to me.

Sounds like they should up the min buy in at HS. I don't mind signing as I'm quite indifferent to the rathole at my stakes, but I'm not sure if this is encouraging all zoom games to be unratholeable or if that's necessary. The nature of zoom is what it is. So why not push for a higher min buy in instead?

I too shall completely waste my time and sign this

signed

Sent from my GT-I9505 using 2+2 Forums