I'm not familiar with either, but how could this be the case?

Hand histories are provided to allow players to safeguard against bots and cheating. Limiting the tables isn't a bad idea, but capping it at 1 is awful.

that's the correct plan if somebody really wants to fix online poker...Doubt anybody does though..

1) Limit the number of tables you can play on a site. Reasons should be obvious.

2) Eliminate HU tables. Joe Tall and others have thoroughly explained this. Would just like to add back in the early Party Poker days you could still create private tables with passwords that didn't show up in the lobby. If two people really wanted to play HU sites could still implement this kind of thing...

3) Allow frequent name changes (I personally would say anonymous tables are best but I know plenty disagree with this). Long term losing players do feel embarrassed about their losing. Let them gain a new identity frequently.

4) Filter bonuses away from the 20 table grinders and towards acquisition/retention of recreation players via an increased advertising revenue and offering larger reload deposits to habitual losers. IMO a 100% reload bonus up to $200 offered to your whole player pool is substantially less good for the poker ecology than offering a 500% reload bonus to your top 20% largest losing but still occasionally active players.

5) Have stakes capped lower than they are now. 10/20 at NL/PL and $50/100 for limit (or maybe even $30/60) is big enough. Someone losing their whole roll/savings in one night or losing life changing money is not good for the game in the long run -- the media runs with these kind of stories, and someone that gets fleeced entirely will never be back. These stakes are still high enough that a recreational player in it can still feel like they're a "high roller," but not so high that they can destroy their lives in one night of gambling in it. Plus these stakes still attract a guy who deposits $300-500 and wants to take a shot at running it up quickly...

6) Do more promotions involving limit games. Let's just face it, the reality is a losing player gets more bang for his buck in limit games and has a better chance of going on a winning rush. Offer happy hours that only involve limit games, offer other bonuses such as high hand of the hr etc only at limit tables... Do whatever it takes to drive more of your casual players towards giving a limit game a try.

7) At stakes where only a few games run, have them set up in must-move fashion. Fish feel less targeted with this kind of system. If a game at $100/200 lhe gets going with a fish in it, the only way you remain on the wait list is if you play in a must move game. Don't play the must move game, you aren't on the list. Miss too many hands in an hour stretch at the must move and you get booted off the table/list. This will prevent a fish from feeling embarrassed when they realize that every time they play a game a 20 name wait list gets developed. Once a wait list of 4 names is on a list a new table spawns and asks you to get seated and play, or be removed from the list and not be allowed back on the list for another 15 minutes.

Excellent suggestions.I think you nailed it with the "Must Move" scenario the most imo.Very good idea

I don't think missing out on a hud prevents any good player from profiting. Also the % of players using one isn't as high as you would think.

Schneids, is limit poker your main game?

Some fish know they exist and feel they are at too big a disadvantage and it puts them off playing.

Improving the Eco system is as much about dealing with the views of fish as anything (whether or not those views are factually accurate).

Removing huds will probably reduce the number of mass multi tablers as well.

Double post.

guys

you know what people want so much in this world ! a ****in unique avatar and stuff. thats why you will win 10$ cash bonus for winning 5 heads up. 10$ bonus for suckout the AA with KK 5 times, and stuff like that. someone who win a milestone hand have a unique stars. someone who kill a pro have a t-shirt....

now poker is just money money money, no more fun stuff

and there is so much people in this world who wants to play real money but they dont want to deposit. give theses guys a free 8$

i started real money poker in 2009 because stars gave me 5$ free

Any effort to control, or direct a consumer's decision to spend his/her money, beyond offering attractive alternatives, is worth avoiding. These business will be forced to remove such ridiculous controls as consumers leave the tables and flock to the competition. Just a matter of time, and of course, intelligent consumers that don't hesitate making a rational buying (where to play) decision.

I always thought that stuff like forced straddle games and ante games would always be a big positive for the poker landscape. Just give action players a better chance to win. Eventually the action players just quit because they realize that they are going to lose a huge percentage of their sessions just because they want to play more hands.

the majority of players lose money. so they might enjoy a game where there are more gambling players and less 24 tabling nit grinders. so the intelligent player might move his poker action to a site where he does not have to play with the winning grinders. i don't really know.

it sounds like a few sites are trying the segregating player pool angle. honestly, don't think its the best idea. grinders pay rake too. although getting rake from a fish is better than rake from the grinder. the best solution is probably something like rush poker where people can play hands quicker and it does not discriminate against the fish as much.

maybe rush poker with no huds is the answer. i don't really know.

party poker has never been the smartest company in the world but they must have some reason for trying it.

+1 to getting rid of huds