It is true that the lack of stability should be solved first. The only thing i see in the chat nowadays is "$xxxx missing for 2 days now."

Also, as someone said before, hands are being folded without touching the fold button or timing out. I think this is a major issue you should be looking into.

Make the tables of the less popular games resizeable. Cant even have 3 tables of PLO8 open without any overlay and I'm on a decent monitor and resolution.

As for the new layout. Forget the pictures and go with just an A K Q J.

Yeah, I was superbly tilted yesterday and I'm not today so maybe we will have an even better discussion .

I will have to disagree. I mean yeah the customer segmentation is probably very complex given the different stakes, games and demographics.

However, two segments which are easy to distinguish dominate:
a) the casual player who is EV- in the games he plays
b) the (semi-)professional player who hopes he is EV+ in the games he plays

Like maybe at micro stakes there are casual players who are EV+ and the distinction is moot but at SSNL+ that is an easy distinction to make.

There might be a few border cases and exceptions and it is not the whole story, but I'm completely of the mindset that it is a very valid segmentation. And yes, the "sharks" are there only to find the "fish" (except a few who claim they are EV+ in any lineup which is mostly just dick waving) while the "fish" are there to gamble.

I agree that just copying solutions from the B&M world to the online world isn't always the best solution. However, it seems to work in this case, at least better than the alternative of having no waitlist.

I don't want to spend my time mindlessly refreshing the lobby to see if there are any seats free at the tables I want to play. I'd rather get on the waiting list and be done with it. If there's no waiting list on OnGame to do it I will just do it at some other site. Do you understand my position?

I think we're making progress, but you still speak too much in puzzles. Can you elaborate more? What are the things that prevent a player from being able to play immediately if not the fact that all the tables with the fish are full? And that is something that cannot be resolved really.

There are traditional waitlists (at all of the sites; frustrating that the wait list with the fish is so long) and no waitlists at all (at OnGame; frustrating to keep hoping a seat frees up). I don't see an alternative really. Do you? You seem to be hinting you are looking at reimplementing waitlists in a better way, however maybe I just read too much into it.

Good question. Don't actually have the answer because I wasn't aware there was a difference in the HU offering.

Will pass it on to people who are aware of it.

Humble salutes,

Ombudsman
Ongame Network

+1 for loving the no waitinglist feature its absolutely great at least at higher stakes where there isnt that much action. Often times in the past there were like only a handfull 5/10 tables each with 4-5 players in the waitinglist; its much better to force people to start new tables.

also good job on the new shortstacker policy!

the rest of the software kinda sucks but i think people forget the old one wasnt exactly a masterpiece either.

an autorebuy option would be really nice.

i dont understand...so does ongame not know there are not hu tables above 5/10 anymore?...

I'm not omnipotent buddy, that's the problem.

We know, I just didn't. Based on what I have now been told, I think you can expect those levels to re-introduced soon. No promises though. These decisions are taken based on the ever-changing needs, demands and requests of our partners, their players and on the activity inside the network.


Humble salutes,

Ombudsman
Ongame Network

ok, and i also agree that having no waitlists now is a good thing. thanks.

Not really. Whoever you are, whatever your reason for playing is, I want you to be able play whatever it is you want to play straight away. Be it cash games, sit & gos or scheduled tournaments.

Since people seem to hang around in waiting lists, it appears we are not able to give them what they want right away. So we constantly need to figure out ways to help make that happen.
And in order to figure what to do about it, we need to figure why people hang around in waiting lists in the first place, when, like someone else pointed earlier, it’s certainly not because there are no free seats as such like in the case of brick and mortar casinos.

There are many reasons why players use waiting lists, and our job is to make sure we develop ways around these reasons.

One reason some of you guys tend to use it is because you are very specific about EXACTLY which tables you want to play at. A completely different reason could be that you simply can’t figure out how to navigate these huge lists of tables and tournaments present in the lobby.

Different players have different needs and ideally we are successful in addressing them all.

That’s basically what I’m trying to say.

Thanks!

This has been noted. I’m gathering all note related feedback sent to through the Ombudsman service (and posted here) so we can bring it to the those responsible and demand some answers.

The rest of your user-interface related concerns are all being addressing in one way or other. As for time banks, pre-set bet buttons etc, those are features that we approach with the same methodology I (tried to) explained above.

Humble salutes,

Ombudsman
Ongame Network

Yes.

Humble salutes

Ombudsman
Ongame Network

The picture cards = hot topic.

Humble salutes,

Ombudsman
Ongame Network

no letters! pictures!
but make 'em lil more readable.

Waiting lists plz.

For some information about what actually happens and why the it’s difficult for our partners support organisation to service you properly in these cases -->

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/39...68/index2.html

Welcome to our world. We estimated not having the waiting lists would create some new trends in how players use our software. We were right. Now we need to figure out if it happened for the same reasons we thought it would happen and if we are happy with those changes. And most importantly, if players are happy with it. And why.


I’ve never said we were in limbo. Then I’ve expressed myself vaguely. We still need to replace some of the good uses standard waiting lists fulfil. But we haven’t necessarily decided exactly what to replace them with.

Maybe the current setup used by basically everybody is impossible to beat. But we’re glad the new P5 engine gives us the flexibility to question it before deciding.

Humble salutes,

Ombudsman
Ongame Network

I think I get what you are inferring here:
*As a business, ongame and partners aim is to generate rake. Whatever game types and setups generate optimal rake are optimal for ongame and partners. Somtimes (often even) this will align with the "regular/winners" in the games preference but not always*

I can only assume from your policy of warning multi-skin ratholers that ongame find that practice to be -EV to their wellbeing also.
I also assume that there must be another reason pulling in the opposite direction (why you still have 20bb buyins) and probably is that its quite +EV (to ongame) to have random recreational players to buy in for 20bb.

As a compromise how about 30bb minimums? Low enough for recreational players to play but this will totally alienate the 20bb ratholers (since the majority of these guys play from a 20bb push/shove hand chart and have little idea of how to actually play any kind of stack).
Hopefully the result of that is that the 20bb ratholers will simply revert to playing 100bb deep (usually poorly anyway).

Of course all these are side issues, the major bugs are 100% priority for us all.

[/QUOTE]
I’ve never said we were in limbo. Then I’ve expressed myself vaguely. We still need to replace some of the good uses standard waiting lists fulfil. But we haven’t necessarily decided exactly what to replace them with.

Maybe the current setup used by basically everybody is impossible to beat. But we’re glad the new P5 engine gives us the flexibility to question it before deciding.

Humble salutes,

Ombudsman
Ongame Network[/QUOTE]

I like the idea of no waiting lists but it would be improved massively if on the instant play screen you could also choose minimum players sat at the table, to stop you getting sat alone.

i.e. I want to sit at a FR table, so I check max 10, but I also want a minimum of 7 sat, so I check minimum 7. Then I don't get sat on an FR table of less than 7 people.

Do you think this could be done and does anyone else think this preferable to waiting lists?

also, why the hell is the number !2! in the home screen fast take a seat option not available?
only 5max and 10max

What is the new trend you've been noticing?
(according to pokerscout you've lost a 1/3 of your cash game costumers -- which is rather funny considering some people arguing the actions is better than ever -- I trust numbers over their opinions)

Everybody tableselects to some degree. Obviously wating lists help you tableselect. But that isn't all. I really don't want to use my presious time watching the lobby all the time. This takes focus of the tables I'm playing. And God knows I need to focus more than ever since the new software has small blurry cards and small chips on the table. Cards that are the same color as the table, table layout that's "messy" -> all factors that make it hard to see the action properly (like I've said: I too often find myself in spot where I miss a player that's in the pot)

I really find it amusing that some people think you can cancel the waiting lists and all of a sudden people don't care about table selections, because that's how I read your response. You don't like people selecting well, so you change the only thing you can change -> the waiting list!

Make the costumers happy. Provide them with pleasent good software and he will pay you back in rake happily.

Yes but they may have lost the 1/3 they wanted to loose to attarct more newer customers. Though the consensus amoung many now is the no waiting list is fine

Yea I'm sure that's why they made the new software -> to get rid of 1/3 of their costumers, because otherwise there wouldn't be enough place for the new ones. Good point!

You're bright and obv have great business sense!

We certainly don't want any of our partners' players to have to spend time mindlessly refreshing the lobby as long as the reason they do it something we think the shouldn't have to do.

Absurd example but if you mindlessly refresh the lobby just so that you can keep track of how many players play at each level, we'd probably not spend too much resources fixing that for you because we'd assume you’re there to play cards not, not count em

Regarding your thoughts on "segmentation", we clearly approach things a bit differently. I'm sure there are operators of other online poker environments and networks that share your rather simple (simple does not mean stupid or anything) view on that. But we don't.

Humble salutes,

Ombudsman
Ongame Network

Ombudsman
Ongame Network

I had a bad feeling the instant play screen was being pushed as the alternative to wait lists. For me the instant-play screen is pointless, I'd be seated just as quickly if I had the option of being directed to the normal table lobby.

My point about the limit games has been totally ignored, seems that they want the limit games to die.

Yeah I read that afterwards and thought it was kinda lame also I dont think they wanted to loose any customers. I think they thought it could increase their traffic by making sure guys do not target fish at tables.

In addition to your idea's:
It could be usefull to have tables where you can take place(or be placed by the quick sit) but where the game only starts if there are more than X players seated. So if you don't want to play HU or shorthand you still can open a new table.
Just some thoughts...