Busted flush draw

As long as i can have them without a problem, i don't mind them. I 4 tables Zoom and these stats don't interrupt that.

If they help max the win rate why would you not use them?

Has anyone else noticed people never folding to cbets? I expected to get more folds than in regular games, especially at nitring. I might just be coming up against sets/bigger overpairs an abnormal amount, but it seems like nobody folds on any board?

I'm playing at 5nl so a lot of guys are stations obv, but the avg Vpip is like 10-13% so it's not like they're entering the pots light and floating. I figured I'd get a lot of folds if they miss their set, it hasn't worked out that way so far. I swear I get more folds at 6max regular. I'm kind of confused lol.

Are you guys barrelling at all? Or do you just put out one bet and then shutdown if called? I tried firing more than once... I got shoved on every time lol.

Also wish they'd hurry up with HM1, I'd like to be able to see again I'd also like to see my ev, just to confirm that Zoom is in fact as frigged as it appears.

Move up where they respect your cbets.

You took minimum 1 hour to make this post and the calculus. Great work.
The algorithm may be wrong yes. Did PokerStars say somewhere what algorithm zoom is using exactly ?

Players with shorter sessions will pay more than 1.5bb per orbit and players with longer sessions will pay less than 1.5bb per orbit. That is a fact. Now the question is --> How can this be fair ?. I would like some answer from a representative of PS on this.

A way to solve this is simple. To assign randomly every position without exception.

=> we can get rid of the 'sit out next bb ' checkbox by implement this.

higher stakes zoom plz , nl100 playmoney

current state is good, if it would be random there is new variance factor, unlucky folks get sat on blinds much more then they should, kewl solution pal.

just dont rathole, sitout, go take a piss, smoke, make tea, sit back and you wont be forced into bb 1st hand

You are claiming that collectively the player pool is paying more BBs than they should be. If extra blinds are being posted, then how and when do you think they're getting posted?

Doesn't common sense tell you that since exactly 1.5BB are posted every orbit that your conclusion is complete nonsense?

No wonder the Zoom games are soft if this thread is indicitive of the typical mentality of people playing at those tables.

What ?? what you say about new variance factor makes no sense. It's already random anyway. It's unfair because there are many other players that plays without ratholing but they do short sessions and they're being punished by this system. Pokerstars should fix it in order to make everyone to pay 1.5Bbb per orbit.

Why should players that plays longer sessions have the privilege of paying less than 1.5bb per orbit. How can be this system fair for everyone ?

I think he did a mistake at the begin but after he noticed there is no bbs lost. It's just some players ( the ones who plays longer sessions ) pay less bbs/ hands while the ones who play short sessions pay more bbs/hand.

Why would a short session pay more if they always use sit out next BB?

If you start a new session, double up within the first few hands and then sit out next bb, it will not always give you your 7 hands outside of the blinds before your next bb. You may only get 4 some of the time. I think that in the long run a rat holer will play in the blinds more often than somebody who does not rathole.

Never thought of this but good to see that zoom is punishing rat holers

People don't understand variance in in this thread. It doesn't matter if you play 1 hand, double up, and sit out next bb. If you do that for 100k hands, you're still going to pay virtually the same bbs/hand as someone who plays a 100k hand session.

Firstly on average you should should get 8 hands if FR or 5 if 6 max. Also you will not get exactly that many every time. Some times it's less sometimes more. What brings you to the conclusion you will get less on average when using sit out next BB.

I play 100bb with top up, but also rat hole when I get deep. of 20081 hands I've played 2206 have been in the BB. My fair share would be 2231.

I want a Pokerstars link showing what you say is correct. If you can't do this I think the cliam is BS.

im amazed at how much time has been devoted to this topic

we want 1-2 , we want 2-4

I would like to provide you a mathematical solution for that but given the algorithm Pokerstars is using is not clear I can't.

There is already a known thing and it is you always post the bb every time you start a session. Supposing the next hands after that are randomly assigned then we can use common sense to create an extreme extrategy that shows the problem.

Strategy --> we play 1 hand and then we click 'sit out next bb' check box.

Let's think the orbit = 6

Given that we will have 4/6 of playing the next hand in some other position but small blind and 1/6 to play the small blind and 1/6 to end the session. If we play a second hand the next hand we will have 1/6 to end our session and 4/6 to play a next hand in some other position but small blind and 1/6 to play in the small blind. Following this we can see a simple formula :

bbs paid = 1 (bb) + 1/6( 1 (sb)+ 1/6(...) + 1/6 (to end) + 4/6(--) ) + 1/6 (to end) + 4/6 ( 1/6( 1 (sb)+ 1/6(...) + 1/6 (to end) + 4/6(--) ) + 1/6 (to end) + 4/6(...) )

where (to end)=0 so

X (bb)= 1 (bb) + 1/6( 1 (sb)+ 1/6(...) + 4/6(--) ) + 4/6 ( 1/6( 1 (sb)+ 1/6(...) + 4/6(--) ) + 4/6(--) ) =
1 (bb) + 1/6( 1/2 (bb)+ 1/6(...) + 4/6(--) ) + 4/6 ( 1/6( 1/2 (bb)+ 1/6(...) + 4/6(--) ) + 4/6(--) )

=> X = 1 + 1/6( 1/2 + 1/6(...) + 4/6(--) ) + 4/6 ( 1/6( 1/2 + 1/6(...) + 4/6(--) ) + 4/6(--) )

where ... = 1/2 + 1/6(...) + 4/6(--) and -- = 1/6( 1/2 + 1/6(...) + 4/6(--) ) + 4/6(--)

=> ... = 6/5 (1/2+4/6(--)) = 3/5+4/5(--) and -- = 1/12 + 1/36(...) + 28/36(--)

=> ... = 6/5 (1/2+4/6(--)) = 3/5+4/5(--) (1) and -- = 36/8 (1/12 + 1/36(...)) = 3/8 + 1/8 (...) (2)

With (1 and (2) we have that

... = 3/5+4/5(3/8 + 1/8 (...)) => ... = 3/5+3/10 + 1/10 (...) => ... = 10/9 * 9/10 = 1

so we have that ... = 1 and -- = 1/2

=> X = 1 + 1/6( 1/2 + 1/6 + 4/6*1/2 ) + 4/6 ( 1/6( 1/2 + 1/6 + 4/6*1/2 ) + 4/6*1/2 )
=> X = 1 + 1/6( 3/6 + 1/6 + 2/6 ) + 4/6 ( 1/6( 3/6 + 1/6 + 2/6 ) + 2/6 )
=> X = 1 + 1/6 + 2/6


So you're paying 1.5 (bb) per every session you do.

Now we must calculate the number of hands (NH) we play per session.

NH = 1 (the big blind we pay at first) + 1/6 (end) + 5/6(1 + 1/6 (end) + 5/6(...)) but end = 0 so
NH = 1 + 5/6(1+5/6(...))

If Z=1+5/6(...) => Z=1+5/6Z => Z=6
then
NH = 6

Conclusion : We would be paying 1.5bb per orbit Supposing the hands after the first are randomly assigned but that is NOT THE CASE. As you may have noticed there is some different algorithm for the second hand because you're often going to be seated in the small blind so that will lead to a dispersion of the situation we analyzed here which is PROBLEM.

It's not only punishing ra holers. It's punishing everybody that plays short sessions and that SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.

Wrong. I'm aware of variance. You're silly thinking people don't understand variance.

Sounds like you're not really thinking about your cbets look like from villains pov and what they do with their range vs your perceived range. Stop cbetting just for the sake of it......

I'm 9BI below all IEV courtesy of losing KK vs JJ in for a grand total for 8BI (both deepstack scenarios). IF zoom WAS rigged they wouldn't fkn rig it to make it blatantly obvious with a shifty ev line so it's irrelevant.

EV line is only there for you to see if you're losing simply because you're running bad. You can run bad in so many other ways than aiev.

I'm not so sure about this.

You aren't getting the point. It's too much for you. Admit it

They did, to me, when I asked the support:

In Zoom poker, the big blind is assigned to the player at the table who has spent the longest time without paying a big blind. The small blind and the button are then placed in their normal positions to the right of the big blind. The big blind in Zoom is fairly distributed amongst all players in the playing pool. There will not be a single player who has paid a significant amount more or less in blinds than any other active player at our Zoom tables, who have played for the same amount of time.

Considering this would be true:
However, I doubt that is true when you join a table, which would mean that the cause of the wrong distribution would be the 'sit in' not the 'sit out'.

Considering support is mistaking
That would not be the first time when some guy at the support is misinformed. And the picture below... that is not variance for my eyes.



PS:
Solution
Keep an all time index of number of times placed in each position rather than a 'when was he the last time placed in this position while on this table session'.

Stefan,

While I understand the concern and it's a legitimate one, I think you would agree that determining with exact accuracy what impact 1/2 and 2/4 zoom will have is very hard or impossible. Meanwhile, introducing 1/2 is a) easily reversible b) should answer a lot of questions PS is analysing very quickly and also more efficiently. I don't understand why Stars is being so overly cautious with this.