Because certain people are grouping all ASS as the same. This is clearly not the case and I'm providing points as to why it is not in HU to make people realise saying all ASS should be banned is moronic.

Realllllly?????? IT ISN'T DOING ANYTHING YOU WOULDN'T BE DOING ANYWAY!!

If I have notes that have players I don't want to play as red, when I see red in the lobby, I'm not going to sit them. If I have a guy noted as a fish and fish is green, when I see green in the lobby I'm going to sit that person. The program is doing this exact same thing! It is completely different than a cash jesus seat program! If I don't sit the guy, he will be snap sat by someone else who also has him tagged as a fish. Basically what you're saying now is that the Stars note system shouldn't be used, because it lets me tag a fish so that I can notice him, and thereby take his money faster.

Are you playing poker to make money or not????

still not clear to me. do i understand it correctly when i say: the filter can be adjusted so it either pops up an empty lobby or a marked player?

This software really shouldn't be used for HUSNG's. It gives the pros that use it an unfair advantage to catching recreationals. Since the other pros don't get their share they would likely move down in stakes. This makes the ecosystem go backwards which is a big minus, all the while making a select few bumhunters more money.

Ok I'll explain the way I have it configured.

I mark as follows:

bad reg = blue
fish = green
person I don't like so I'm spite sitting = orange

I set it to sit me in one empty lobby. I then have it set so that if someone with a green or blue label sits it will sit me against them. I then have it set that so I can have another two tables open should an orange labelled person sit. When I start my session I click start and sit one lobby. I then 1 table until orange, green or blue labels sit where it will add more tables according to the parameters I have set.

This is not bad for the health of the games because the fish would've been snap sat by another reg anyway had I not being using the ASS, it has just made life easier by me not having to watch the lobby to try and sit them. He does not feel like he is being hunted and he gets instant games.

But if other good regs (who don't use this program) aren't getting their fair share of bad players then they won't make money... and will feel that the given stake is too hard for them and will move down a stake or two, thus making that level more difficult and therefore Recs won't move up stakes.

This is all about self serving, and all this text trying to justify it is just that.

i take from Bluenowheres post that the answer to my question is, yes: the filter can be set up this way.

to me it looks like KoTH just went down in flames.

The program can be bought by whoever wants it, it's not private, thus does not give an unfair advantage to anybody. If you are against it for that reason you should also be against huds since players who use it may have an edge on players who don't (who can't afford buying a tracking program or who does not know about its existence).

I agree that stars could make it so there wouldn't be the lobby problems that currently exist, making the program obsolete or banning it for only having the sole function of bumhunting...

I think close to all $60s+ regs use it so all the players get a fair share of bad players if they are good enough to have lobby respect. Also as Mr Variance pointed out, it is a product that is available to everyone and even advertised on 2p2, if they make the choice not to buy it, they are choosing to put themselves at a disadvantage.

I don't agree its self serving at all. Having had experience in the games this is the opinion I have formed. If all I cared about was maximising profits for myself I would game select a lot differently from what I do now.

If you aren't good enough for a certain level you will just get sat by the good regs so KoTH (Although it will never by the same style KoTH as cash given the different nature of the games) is still working fine. I can't just go to $500s and wait for fish cos I'd get snap sat by every single reg and never get left alone. I can go sit $10/$25 cap (where it isn't KoTH) though and wait for the biggest droolers to come by.

edit: In fact it may well be better to have a product that is available to everyone rather than banning it then whoever wants to break the rules gains the advantage. If it was banned a similar program would just be privately made and it would put way more people at a disadvantage than the current system which you claim is unfair because some people choose not to use this program.

sorry, but this line of argument is not valid. it would require the condition (non-private == universally-available) to be true. this is not the case.

What do you mean by universally-available? for free? Its listed in ps allowed software list and it has a website where you can download it and buy the license just like HEM or PT... do you consider those universally-available?

bobo would rightfully ban me if i was to take the bait and derail this thread to PT or HUDs ;-)

just a note on KoTH. looks like its usability is related to time T it takes to complete a game. i am still hesitant to take on random seating (which is known to work universally), but still put it up one notch.

This is complete BS. No professional is going to actively do things that are going to cut into their long-term bottom line. If you mean you could have a better ROI by practising nittier bumhunting then sure, but if you are saying you are not optimizing your long term poker EV with the decisions that you make pokerwise you are either lying or an idiot.

I don't get how this works either.

You can mark some players as incredibly weak and then join tables they have sat at automatically in the blink of an eye whilst you watch a film or surf the web and refuse to play anyone of any skill at all?

This sounds terrible to me. I take it that due to the ASS there is NEVER any rec on rec action at all (since another rec will never be able to register faster than the ASS)?

I don't think is the type of environment that Pokerstars should be looking to create for online poker.

So basically what the advocates of ASS for HUSNG's are openly admitting to is.

1) No recreationals will ever play recreationals

2) This program allows you to insta sit with only players that you mark off as complete recreationals (bad players) and makes you sit with no one else as you watch a movie etc. (promotes extreme bumhunting)

3) Will drive non ASS using regs (good players) to move down in stakes since they won't get the same proportion of bad players. This further hinders the ecosystem, which in turn can cause a chain reaction as regs keep moving down the ladder to find a win rate that would have been attainable at much higher stakes (more rake for Stars) but they don't get to sit with any recreationals.

4) It's the good regs fault for not finding out the latest angle shooting software that allows them to play only the worst players. Apparently the skill of using ASS is the most important skill in Poker

5) Send an ASS user to IOM to complain that the HUSNG ecosystem is all messed up and want to see it fixed but don't take it off my ASS (no pun intended)

Am I missing anything?

Playing games where my edge is close to zero (when I could easily maintain a 3% roi by not doing so) cuts into my long term bottom line, I do it anyway. I guess I'm an idiot for challenging myself against the better proportion of the population though. Also my long term ev is inherently related to the health of the games. I'd never suggest a short sighted view that would show instant profit but would hurt my long term ev, which is what I was pointing out in that sentence.

point 1 and 2 are contradictory. Saying recs never play recs because of it works under the premise that recs never get lobbies. So if someone waits around for a fish whilst watching a movie they'll never get a game since recs don't really get to open sit (if point 1 is true).

Also practically speaking if anyone decide to try and practice extreme bumhunting (only sitting recs) at higher stakes they'd probably get around zero games a day.

This is a publicly available program. If a reg decides to not buy it and has to move down in stakes to where he can make money because he doesn't want to buy a program then that's Darwinism at its finest.

Not even close to angleshooting. Also saying the skill of using ASS is now important is just lol. If anything it's a better system than before. If everyone now uses ASS then it places more of an emphasis on poker skill since the registration process is an even playing field for all regs. Before you had to be good at grinding the lobby as well as poker, now lobby grinding skill doesn't matter and poker skill in the only factor that matters when playing, which is how it should be.

I'm not suggesting the HUSnG ecosystem is messed up. It is not flawless either though. There are always improvements that can be made and chadders will put these forward and suggest solutions. As a respected high stakes reg the HUSnG community came out in force to vote for him because it is clear nobody else would've put our case across well (especially with regards to ASS).

Yes except there are long term benefits to playing these games - you get less regs in the player pool, you are privy to the lobby more often, you improve your game by playing tougher opponents. Nobody here is just going to choose to make less money because that is ******ed.

Pretty frustrating to see posts from people pretending to be the good guys and going "oh yea, sure, I'm willing to play games at a loss all the time!" No progress is going to be made if you are going to be dishonest (either with yourself or people at whom your posts are directed).

The less regs doesn't really matter at $30s since one person playing them won't make a difference. The lobby at the $30s isn't an issue either. The improve game is the only legitimate point. At $60s+ the other points become relevant but from my pov at the moment they don't matter. The main reason I accept less money is because I enjoy beating/trying to beat regs, I very much doubt I make more monetary ev long term playing how I do. All my expenses are taken care of, poker just provides me additional money so that's probably why I can have a risky game selection and not bother about making less money than I should be making (which most regs will have to care a lot more about than me). I'm certainly not being dishonest when I say I'm quite often playing against guys that I struggle to have a 50% wr against, let alone enough to beat the rake.

I guess my initial thoughts about the Table Starters were that something was off, they just didn't feel right to me. I'm starting to get a better grasp of them and see some of the potential areas for improvement, but need to play more before I could give a credible answer or be more specific. After I get a bit more volume and experience with the Table Starters I’ll be able to give a better answer as to what my thoughts are and will give my suggestions on what could be improved. Feel free to remind me sometime later this week to come back to this question if I have not followed up by then.

Yea, the concerns people have with Table Starter and possible solutions to these will be brought up. I would imagine Table Starters would be a topic Stars would encourage player feedback on given the fact it is a pretty new thing and will want to talk about them at the meeting as well. I've been collecting the comments brought up in various threads regarding Table Starters and will keep adding to it over the next few weeks to help get a good idea of what the general feeling is towards Table Starters and to have a list of suggested problems/solutions to work from.

Ah okay, I understand your position now. However please also understand that people that rely on poker for income don't share the same attitude and won't be happy to play a HUSNG where their expected winrate is <50% and the benefits from playing said SNG don't outweigh the expected monetary loss.

Please keep posting, opinions from people on the other side of the fence is what threads like these in the past have been missing.

Thanks. Please also keep to bring up feedback from from the whole range of stakes, as I suspect people at say mid stakes will have a different experience than those playing ssnl.

Additionally, could you find out why Stars made it so that no new tables spawn for high stakes CAP games? In other words, if one game of 50/100 CAP is going, the only way to start a new game is through table starters. This isn't always good. Table starters have been working well but should be offered in parallel, not instead of. The proper solution is to keep spawning one new table as games started from non-table starter games get going. In other words, you cap the number of tables at a certain stake where no hands are dealt at 1, but if there isn't one you spawn it.

I've been in a few situations late at night when games don't get going off table starters, but the one game that did go off was from the non starter table. So you have a 50/100 game going, like 2/6 people on the starter, and no new 50/100 table. This doesn't make sense and almost seems like a bug. PStars has chimed in on this issue in the past but haven't answered the question of why it is this way.

Natis, It's great to see you are already seeking feedback.

If you don't mind could you read through this thread and let us know what points that have been raised would you be prepared to talk about with Pstars.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/22...games-1298974/

Once again best of luck next month.

Sure no problem, will read over it later tonight.