You really think your customers are this ******ed as to believe this means anything?

Fortunately there's barely any traffic on microgaming at relevant stakes so this doesn't hurt me, but this statement still irks me.

What do you mean? Atleast I do believe that people who buy 100bbs are more likely winning players than those buying short. But I still prefer to play with 100bbs and dont have to worry shorties ratholing 24/7 like unibet for example. Are you a shortstacker? If not then why so mad?

What is the situation with HU tables? Is it still king of the hill system in new software and can you choose table(player) you sit vs to play or does it auto sit you? and sit on empty tables normally like in old one?

I dont want to download a new one until i know for sure. Also if i do from where can i download old one (GUTS)

Thanks

I'm mad because of the dishonest representation of statistics and the laughable conclusion presented to the customers.

1. It is more likely for a 100bb player to be a winner because that's what a large majority of winning players buy in for. Anyone who doesn't is either a professional shortstacker or a recreational (more or less).

2. If they actually care about the recreationals winrate, or rather, loss-prevention, allowing a shorter stack will make them lose money at a slower rate and/or give them a much quicker route to a winning strategy (basically, shortstacking is much simpler than fullstacking)

The argument you could make is that shortstacking is a parasite on other 100bb players, since that is actually true. A correct 30bb strategy is undoubtedly at an advantage over a correct 100bb strategy since you are allowed to realize equity at a much higher rate.

As such, it might be the right thing to do (not allowing sub100bb buyins), but to cover it as something it is not (we are looking out for the recreationals. They have a higher chance of winning with 100bb stacks!) is just absurd.

This auto fold/sit out bug is getting annoying
Any ETA on a fix?
If it helps, it seems to happen more often when "sit out next hand" is selected before playing a hand.

Lastly, I have reported multiple instances of this on Nordic and Betsson, the first sometime last week. I have yet to hear back from any of them, any idea how much longer this might take?

Well I didn't think it as protecting the recs thing so my bad. I think they do that allready allowing you to change alias regularly and now with the autoseat.

Personally, the auto seat I don't mind, what I do mind is not being able to select a table at all. If they must use auto seat, doing it like party would be better, I can still table select, but the actual seat at the table is random.

What is the point of knowing there is a maniac at a table when I can't play against him deliberately?

The problem with party's system is that you can still leave the table and sit next to the fish if the table isn't full. Just remember the table and stacks and you're good to go. Best way would be the party's system and if you leave the table you can't sit in in the next hour or something.

As far as I am aware, you can't, actually. When you stand up, you have to wait 8 minutes or so in order to sit down again.

Ok so they have changed that. Been a while since I've played those games. Too much of a sissy to buy converter and refuse to play in unfair enviroment. But yeah I agree that would be the best system.

Speaking of transparency, why has every big site left the network? (And mostly for Ipoker it would seem?) There used to be Bet365, Ladbrokes, Boyle poker, Unibet etc... only the small fry are left now. There must be a reason?

Of course not. I never suggested it did. Here is the link to the full blog: https://mpn.poker/the-end-of-shortstacking/

The blog doesn't draw a conclusion from just that statistic, there is mutually supporting evidence that suggests that players who buy-in for 30BB are both more likely to be losers, and lose more money in total.

In my opinion, most compelling is what happens when you take a 30BB player and make them buy-in for 100BB. On average, they lose less.

Similarly if you take a 100BB player and make them buy-in for 30BB, they lose more.

On the topic of allowing a choice of buy-in, lets say there are these groups of players.

Group A: Buys in for 100BB all the time. (This is about 85% of players)
Group B: Buys in for 30BB all the time. (About 8% of players).
Group C: Buys in for some other specific amount all the time. (About 5%)
Group D: Buys in for a random amount, such as whatever is left in their account, or has no consistent pattern. (Remaining 2% of players).

Group A (85%) doesn't need a choice. Our existing experience works for them.

Group B (8%) wants a choice but would, as a whole, do better if they bought in for 100BB. They would also be worth more to a poker room in the long term if they bought in for 100BB. Group B is also unpopular - lots of players, especially those in Group A, don't want to play against them. Hence their value is lower than it appears, as they drive away other players.

Group C (5%) we have not attempted to draw conclusions on at this time.

Group D (2%) would do a lot better if they played for stakes they could afford.

Given the above, would you develop a feature that requires time and effort, and complicates the user interface? What argument would you make to do so?

We've identified an issue which affects Sit & Gos and are working on it right now. I don't have a deployment date yet though. If this is happening to you in cash games or MTTs, then we haven't been able to recreate the issue yet.

Either way, I'd really appreciate it if you would PM me some details. I can follow up with Betsson / Nordic to find out the status of your query with them, and the additional detail would be helpful to us. Please remove any personal data before you PM me. Thanks.

All of these poker rooms left MPN a long time ago (the most recent of the ones you mentioned was Unibet in 2014). It's not appropriate for me to comment why (and in many cases I don't know as it was before my time), if you want an answer you could ask them.

Is the update for the new client out yet? I play on Redstar and the tables wont open. They get stuck at 100% during loading. Only the browser version of the client works fine. Im sticking with the old software right now.

Try asking the live chat support for a download link for the old version. Personally, as soon as the new one is mandatory, Ill be gone from MPN, cant stand the new client, though Ill miss MPN very much :/

WTF server crushed while playing 8 table.. .....

these ****s getting anoying .... constantly losing BB or getting kick out of tables .and these server crushses... ... ..
its feels like everyday iam losing couple of euros becus of these bugs..

and no i dont want to contact my client provider becus they do nothing ... and waste of time and energy even try to reach them..

I understand the thing about not wanting to contact the provider. They keep asking me about more details about the hands the sit out bug occurred in, after I gave them the Hand # as seen on the table (which is apparently displayed wrong when I get booted from the table).
Besides the Hand #, in all but one case I gave them the Table Name, names of players involved in the hand and the approximate time.

I mean, it is always the last hand that I played at the table in question, how hard can it be to find it?

All in all this bug has not cost me more than 20 or 30 euros at most, but it starts to feel like a job to report and provide details about it.

+1, now it's completely impossible to take a break. You never know if you gonna get kicked out of the table in 1 sec or not... (old software)

I'm not sure about that. By default this player probably either takes 300$ for 30 bbs to NL1k table instead of 200$ to nl200 and have 100bb+ some leftover for reloads. I really doubt that he will lose 30 bbs slower than 150 bbs.. Even if someone busts him immediately he still has 50 bbs to reload.

Hello Alex! Do we need to send a few more messages to the support ya? And oh wait, we're all having this bug playing Cash Games and NOT the SNG that you keep mentioning! And why wouldn't you fire up a cash game table yourself and get a crystal clear idea of what's going on if you care so much? Let's do this, come on!

And one more disgusting thing that this bug brings: if you are UTG, wanting to sit out the next hand to finish the session and you get dealt a hand you want to play, you shouldn't use the "sit out" option because the hand will be automatically folded on the flop and sit you out. So if you want to play that hand, you shouldn't use the sit-out option and in that case you are forced to pay the BB next hand and play another orbit

Play PLO 1/2 across the tables, sit out at all tables and see what happens. It's not pretty.

Strong +1 given the current state of the new client. It's mind boggling how the sites aside from PokerStars cannot create an excellent player expereince. The current (old client) for MPN is very decent without the recent bugs IMO but the new one is atrocious.

I know its not on the menu ATM, but would encourage development on the PLO8 for new client. There is still a market for this with the right advertisement and games available

No USA players right ?

Trust me, I've tried. I'm not able to replicate this issue on my end. The developers are working hard on it and I'll let you know when we have an update. In the meantime, if you were negatively impacted by the issue please contact your poker room and we'll make it right.

Correct.

It is on our backlog, how quickly we implement the game in the new client depends on the demand that we see from players.

We believe we've identified the cause of the sitting out issue in cash games.

We are making a configuration change right now that will make the issue a lot less likely to happen. A side effect of this is that players will be able to sit out for a lot longer in cash games (up to 1 hour, as opposed to 5 minutes currently).

When we've resolved the underlying problem we will change this back.

Please let me know if you continue to experience the issue as frequently as before.