Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Pokerstars going to start "Zoom" Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Pokerstars going to start "Zoom" Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released

03-28-2012 , 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypergeometry
obviously Shakaa450 had the nutz.
Busted flush draw

Quote:
Originally Posted by happyeaster
fk me..so many stats in that screenshot...do u really need that many numbers to win 100nl ? lol
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.
Pokerstars going to start "Zoom" Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-28-2012 , 02:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyeaster
fk me..so many stats in that screenshot...do u really need that many numbers to win 100nl ? lol
If they help max the win rate why would you not use them?
Pokerstars going to start "Zoom" Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-28-2012 , 02:52 PM
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.

Last edited by HellNative; 03-28-2012 at 03:02 PM. Reason: Coz I suck balls at Zoom
Pokerstars going to start "Zoom" Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-28-2012 , 03:05 PM
Move up where they respect your cbets.
Pokerstars going to start "Zoom" Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-28-2012 , 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by batman22
I am surprised no math genius here took this challenge. Poker, by definition, is a game in which you end your session at some point, so that is influencing any player, not only MSS-ers(although MSS-ers are more affected then others).

I apologize if I make any mistake and my conclusion is off. I thought long about this and said "How can I pay more then 1.5BB/6 hands when it is obviously that each SH hand gets exactly 1.5BB". Then I realized that if I would be dealt in MP 5% less then I should (for example) then I could pay more than 1.5BB/6 hands and I would not even notice(because the games are going that fast). Then I just looked over a friends MSS database(only 15k hands at the moment) and noticed that he is dealt exactly 10% less then he should in UTG. And then I noticed your post and I started thinking:

According to the your described algorithm, on a session of 1 table of n hands the following happens:

Zoom
1. A player plays 1.5BB(initial 3 hands)
2. For the rest of the hands, a player pays on average 1.5BB per x hands on a x handed game, since the position is randomized. This means that he pays an average of 1.5/x BB per hand.
Lets call this 1.5/x value P from now on. (1)

Total amount payed by a player is during 1 session of n hands of 1 tabling a x handed game is:
1.5BB(the first 3 hands) + P*(n-3) (the rest n-3 hands)
= 1.5 + P*n - 3P
= n*P + 1.5 - 3P = Lets note this as PZoom
(2)

Normal Games
On a full x handed table, a player pays 1.5BB per x Hands. This makes him pay an average of 1.5/x BB per hand. Which makes him pay a total of
n*1.5/x BB
= n*P by using P (as defined in relation (1) )
(lets call this PNormal)

(3)
for a session of n hands at a x handed full table.


Comparison Zoom vs Normal Tables

If we make ExtraZoom = PZoom/PNormal - 1 we are going to obtain the percentage which we pay extra for the same session of n hands played at 1 table in a x handed game. This is going to be expressed using n and x as parameters:

ExtraZoom = (n*P + 1.5 - 3P) / (n* P) - 1
Extra zoom = 1 + (1.5 - 3P)/(n*P) - 1
Extra zoom = (1.5 - 3P)/(n*P)
(4)

I think it is obvious that we DO pay something extra just for playing zoom. Now let's try to find out exactly how much we play extra for playing zoom.

Concrete results
Please remember when you are computing your own number of sessions that a session is zoom is considered from when you join a table until you stand up.
If you are playing 2 sessions of 4 tabling per day without rejoining tables, that means 8 zoom sessions per day.
If you are rejoining tables... that's much more difficult to compute as it depends of your rejoining rules, but in principle the number of hands(n) per session is way smaller and the number of sessions is way bigger then you would expect(especially for MSS-ers).

For SH
x is 6 => P=1.5/6 = 0.25
ExtraZoomSH = (1.5 - 3P)/(n*P)
ExtraZoomSH = 0.75/(n*0.25)
Best case scenario(long standing regs): If you play sessions which on average are 500 hands, you are paying in the blinds only ~0.6% extra. Please don't tell me you play 1600 hands per hour while 4 tabling, I already explained this is actually 4 sessions of 400 hands each(unless you rejoin, in which case is more sessions of less hands each).
Average case scenario: Let's say a player plays on average 10 zoom orbits in a session(regs are cool, but MSS'ers and most fish will bring this average maybe to a much lower value then you might expect). Then you are paying on blinds an average of 5% extra compared with you playing the same on a normal table.
Worst case scenario: MSS-ers and worst fish are probably playing an average of about 6 orbits per session, which makes them pay an extra of about 10% more money in the blinds compared with what they were playing on normal tables.
Insane scenario: If everybody would just join a a zoom table and press sit out next BB imediatelly, they would pay 37.5% more in the blinds then they would if they would do the same at a normal table

For FR
x is 9 => P=1.5/9 = 0.1(6)
ExtraZoomFR = (1.5 - 0.5)/(n*0.1(6))
ExtraZoomSH = 1/(n*0.1(6))
Same as SH by number of hands:
1. 500h/session: about 0.12% more
2. 12 orbits: about 5% more
3. 6 orbits: 11% more
4. Insane 1 orbit: 50% more

Conclusions
Amounts which we put extra in game in the blinds are huge. Just look at the amount you currently put in the blinds and think that about 3-5% of it you would not normally post. In compensation you get few more hands in BU than you should but that does not make up for the difference. And if you are wondering who the **** won that money, don't forget why rake is there.

Is this a ripoff by Stars? Tbh, I don't know. They are not taking money directly out of our pockets, just make us put more money on the table, which indirectly benefits them(rake).

But I do not find fair that I have to post extra blinds just because I am playing a fast format. I also do not find fair that I had to find it out by myself!

As about the shorties, this is even more unfair for them as Stars promised not to thread different categories of players differently, and they are just doing that now.

As about the fish, they play shorter sessions so they have to put more money in. They play more in the blinds(where they are anyway terrible) which makes them go broke faster. They are not even wrong when they troll about the blinds assignment being unfair.

But if these are the rules for everyone, I don't see anything else to do than to play by them(as long as zoom is playable, obviously).

Quote:
Originally Posted by batman22
Disclaimer

TBH, I do not think that the algorihm is the one described by our fellow. I think Stars tries to keep the order of positions so they initialy put a 100% probability of beeing dealt in BB, then 60% SB - 20% BU - - - 1% UTG then when you get into a position that is reset to 0(or maybe the last 3 positions are reset to 0) and the other probabilities are sorted from right to left(starting with the position you are currently in).

You can check this in your DB by noticing(over significant samples) that EM<MP<CO<BU<SB<BB and please you that play FR replace the positions with all the 9 full ring positions(there is a special report in HEM2 for FR positions).

If I am right, the computation is much more difficult but the result stays: we are paying more blinds then we should. There is only one solution that I can think of: don't deal us in the blind but instead use a counter of the positions we occupied until now to assign probabilities for positions. Sort the counter from highest to lowest, use a 0% probability for the highest and then use the differences from the highest to the lowest to compute the rest of the probabilities(bigger the difference, higher the probability).
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.

Last edited by hypergeometry; 03-28-2012 at 06:35 PM.
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-28-2012 , 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypergeometry
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.
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-28-2012 , 07:56 PM
higher stakes zoom plz , nl100 playmoney
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-28-2012 , 08:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypergeometry
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.
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
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-28-2012 , 09:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by batman22
...Conclusions
Amounts which we put extra in game in the blinds are huge. Just look at the amount you currently put in the blinds and think that about 3-5% of it you would not normally post. In compensation you get few more hands in BU than you should but that does not make up for the difference. And if you are wondering who the **** won that money, don't forget why rake is there.

Is this a ripoff by Stars? Tbh, I don't know. They are not taking money directly out of our pockets, just make us put more money on the table, which indirectly benefits them(rake).....
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.
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-28-2012 , 09:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dybboss
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
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 ?
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-28-2012 , 09:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROM Amnesty
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.
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.
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-28-2012 , 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypergeometry
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?
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-28-2012 , 10:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyg2001
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
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-28-2012 , 11:46 PM
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.
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-28-2012 , 11:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LazyAce
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
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.
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-28-2012 , 11:50 PM
im amazed at how much time has been devoted to this topic
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-29-2012 , 01:35 AM
we want 1-2 , we want 2-4
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-29-2012 , 02:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyg2001
Why would a short session pay more if they always use sit out next BB?
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.
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-29-2012 , 02:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LazyAce
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
It's not only punishing ra holers. It's punishing everybody that plays short sessions and that SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-29-2012 , 02:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzwien
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.
Wrong. I'm aware of variance. You're silly thinking people don't understand variance.
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-29-2012 , 02:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HellNative
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.
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.
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-29-2012 , 02:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypergeometry
Wrong. I'm aware of variance. You're silly thinking people don't understand variance.
I'm not so sure about this.
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-29-2012 , 02:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzwien
I'm not so sure about this.
You aren't getting the point. It's too much for you. Admit it
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-29-2012 , 04:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypergeometry
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.
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'.
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote
03-29-2012 , 04:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerStars Stefan
Re: Higher Stakes: The main concern to not deploy ZOOM at higher stakes for now is how ZOOM will impact the game liquidity at those stakes. This decision requires more analysis and time to pass so that we can gauge the real impact of ZOOM on the games. We almost certainly won't deploy higher stakes in the next few days.
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.
Pokerstars going to start &quot;Zoom&quot; Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released Quote

      
m