Pokerstars going to start "Zoom" Poker soon? - update(Feb24) Zoom Beta test released - Page 53 - Internet Poker

+1

Zoom would be perfect for CAP. There are definitely enough players for it to run consistently at midstakes and below and given the nature of the game it's a lot easier for people to play more hand/hour there so the regs would love it and I'm sure the fish would too!

Quote

03-12-2012 , 08:47 AM

#1303

Jah Onion

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 10,955

oh dear god no. u already have one chart-needing rake trap. pls let that be the end of it.
i'm sure the fish might love it but the rest of the poker players that don't play cap would prob not be very happy that a ton of fish are playing a game where they lose like 1bb/100 to the regs and 10bb/100 to rake (made up numbers, obv) but with the added benefits that they can pay rake, i'm sorry, i mean play hands, much faster

Quote

03-12-2012 , 09:26 AM

#1304

Sardze

stranger

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 6

Didn't read the thread, so don't know if somebody already talked about this.
If zoom poker had autofold option than i guess they could allow to play more tables. Let's say you check in options those hands that you wouldn't play preflop (27 J3 etc.) and than those tables wouldn't even pop up until you get the hands you want to consider playing.
That way you could rest your finger from clicking fast fold all the time and won't get that eye sore from 4h zoom poker grinding.

Sorry if this has been mentioned previously.

Quote

03-12-2012 , 09:31 AM

#1305

spigge

centurion

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 184

Please please no autofold options. Fast fold button is enough.

you really fold some hands always regardless of situation?

Quote

03-12-2012 , 09:34 AM

#1306

pokerbiker

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,589

stars will never do that, they dont even allow a software which does it - why should they implement it then in zoom?

Quote

03-12-2012 , 09:43 AM

#1307

himomitsme

grinder

Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 538

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwedishAggroMonkey

WE DEMAND ZOOM DONKAMENTS

gotta agree with my fellow sweirdo

Quote

03-12-2012 , 09:49 AM

#1308

bmwteam

veteran

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,430

Quote:

Originally Posted by siac0

Rush used to be 4 max at any one limit, but you could play as many limits as you wanted. Hopefully Zoom is the same, only 4 tables is a bit boring.

notsureifserious.jpg

the majority of the players play only at 1 table

Quote

03-12-2012 , 09:52 AM

#1309

B3RTstare

grinder

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 497

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jah Onion

You can't beat CAP with a chart.

I don't want to ruin this thread with another CAP argument but you are saying that they shouldn't add Zoom CAP because you want the fish in your games? The CAP player pool is probably a lot larger than you realise. If the fish love it and the CAP players love it, why wouldn't they add it?

Quote

03-12-2012 , 10:06 AM

#1310

JH1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,301

wrt max tables I'd be more worried about diluting the pool than slowing the game down.

If the regs (25% of pool) are all playing 4 and the recreationals (75% of pool) are all playing 1, you end up with a 1.33:1 ratio.

If the regs are playing 6, you end up with a 2:1 ratio.

So you're essentially trading 50% more hands per hour for 50% more regs. The implications are worse the farther up the ladder you go where regs make up more of the pool.

Quote

03-12-2012 , 11:41 AM

#1311

andyg2001

veteran

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,905

Quote:

Originally Posted by JH1

It's not easy to play more than 4 anyway. In Rush it was 4 players per pool. I think most regs still only played 4 total. Marc Karam played LAG when 12 tabling, but not many people can do that.

Quote

03-12-2012 , 12:29 PM

#1312

reputablemember

centurion

Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 146

Quote:

Originally Posted by JH1

If the regs (25% of pool) are all playing 4 and the recreationals (75% of pool) are all playing 1, you end up with a 1.33:1 ratio.

So you're dreaming of an average of4 fish per FR Zoom table? Tell me more!

Quote

03-12-2012 , 12:30 PM

#1313

runout_mick

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 5,171

Tried it, liked it, just posting to subscribe so I know when it's live for real money.

I never tried rush, is zoom more or less identical? If so, how did stars get around the patents?

Quote

03-12-2012 , 12:32 PM

#1314

Make Them Dig

grinder

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 434

Zoom PLO please!

Quote

03-12-2012 , 12:38 PM

#1315

pokerbiker

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,589

Quote:

Originally Posted by JH1

If the regs (25% of pool) are all playing 4 and the recreationals (75% of pool) are all playing 1, you end up with a 1.33:1 ratio.

??? maybe that is true at microstakes, for midstakes+ its more like 80% regs and 20% recreationals, if not worse.

Quote

03-12-2012 , 01:08 PM

#1316

LOLRussians

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 1,381

Quote:

Originally Posted by runout_mick

Tried it, liked it, just posting to subscribe so I know when it's live for real money.

I never tried rush, is zoom more or less identical? If so, how did stars get around the patents?

IIRC - there isn't/wasn't any type of patents for rush style poker

Quote

03-12-2012 , 01:27 PM

#1317

rzweig

grinder

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 596

Quote:

Originally Posted by B3RTstare

Truth.

Quote

03-12-2012 , 01:51 PM

#1318

dadude

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 5,176

+1 for plo, all the way down to micros please!

Quote

03-12-2012 , 01:58 PM

#1319

MagicMurderBean

banned

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 743

So all those caps players can be pooled into just zoom. small stakes rush was already dry as hell. i'd rather have all the fish in one player pool but I guess it doesn't matter if you're an nl10 microdink.

Quote

03-12-2012 , 02:25 PM

#1320

yAAwn

centurion

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 192

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jah Onion

From stars perspective those numbers would look pretty good compared to the rates some fish get murdered at 100bb where they end up paying almost no rake so the reg also ends up paying no rake because games don't run without a fish. If anything your own argument is for CAP, not against it.

Last edited by yAAwn; 03-12-2012 at 02:26 PM. Reason: .

Quote

03-12-2012 , 02:25 PM

#1321

NDHand

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,505

Release it already, I already used my 2 months grace period and I want to grind March with Zoom!

Quote

03-12-2012 , 02:45 PM

#1322

fiftyonefifty

centurion

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 195

Quote:

Originally Posted by NDHand

Release it already, I already used my 2 months grace period and I want to grind March with Zoom!

Quote

03-12-2012 , 03:49 PM

#1323

JH1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,301

Quote:

Originally Posted by pokerbiker

??? maybe that is true at microstakes, for midstakes+ its more like 80% regs and 20% recreationals, if not worse.

That's exactly what I'm saying, hence:

Quote:

The implications are worse the farther up the ladder you go where regs make up more of the pool.

Lets redo the math with your pool breakdown.
80x4 = 320 | 20x1 = 20 | 16:1
80x6 = 480 | 20x1 = 20 | 24:1

Not that I think the reg % is actually quite that high in reality, but this illustrates the point and how much more drastic the ratios become higher up.

There needs to be a balance between volume and player ratio. 2 table max is too low on volume although the ratio is great. 6+ table max is great on volume but the ratio is terrible.

Last edited by JH1; 03-12-2012 at 03:56 PM.

Quote

03-12-2012 , 04:01 PM

#1324

JH1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,301

Quote:

Originally Posted by reputablemember

So you're dreaming of an average of4 fish per FR Zoom table? Tell me more!

I picked arbitrary player pool breakdowns to illustrate the effect that adding to max tables has on player ratio. I'm not speaking in literal numbers here since I obviously don't have actual player pool breakdowns.

If you want to come up with a more accurate number just take your estimated ratio and tables per player type for regular games, do the math in reverse to come up with a player pool breakdown, and then apply that to the new Zoom table max.

Quote

03-12-2012 , 04:15 PM

#1325

josephthepimp

adept

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 862

This probably is the wrong place to ask. But is the "true" rake that pokerstars offers higher or lower than the rake fulltilt used to have? (Not counting rakeback or vip programs) because I used to pay a lot of rake just based on the volume per hour.

Quote

Page 53 of 138

First

3 33 43 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 63 73 103

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 53 of 138

First

3 33 43 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 63 73 103

Last