I havent played a lot of HU format NL/PLO lately, but i dont want to live in a world where these become obsolete formats

ACR removed HU from their lobbies, I believe because of the potential real-time advisor cheats and the whole kidopham incident (AFAIK they denied that this was a contributing factor, but it seems like it was)

HU formats are definitely becoming more vulnerable to real-time advisor software/CFRM type stuff

In the coming years should we be worried about sites removing heads up formats altogether? I think HU-format allows for better security opportunities FWIW (like captcha pop ups, random check-ins, being able to asses stats, etc).

I think they should remove HU games and promote mixed games like stud and Omaha 08 more.

Only nit nut peddlers want heads up banned.

Heads up poker is the purest form of poker, to have no heads up would be meh, heads up poker promotes the game more than any other format, all the best poker players that most players look up to are mostly heads up players. It only takes up a limited amount of tables and mostly attracts those that like to play it, the theory that recs lose their money faster at heads up is meh because as I said it mostly only attracts those that like to play heads up.


Is zoom heads up a solution to improve heads up games so less bumhunting? Would some of the reg heads players want to comment?

They most certainly aren't safe from being removed. I believe 888 removed hu cash many years ago and were the first to do so. The beginning of the end was when FTP removed HUcash as a 'trial' (when they were owned by the stars group). Shortly, and predictably afterwards, stars really got the ball moving when they went to zoom only and a flurry of other sites followed suit straight away (Winamax removed theirs a week later, even though it was capped at 1/2 and they were raking nearly 40bb/100 from it).

Obviously other sites got in line sharply when they knew they could get away with blatantly limiting their offerings to suit their own ends. Many of the full ring / 6 max grinders, who didn't even play hu (and whose interest it was in to see this format die) didn't help us while this was going on when they celebrated how good it was for the ecology. They'll get these guys too when we're all playing 6 max, anonymous, hudless, fast seat poker though. What a great ecology we'll have.

WPN is the latest casualty from the handful of rooms that still offered HUcash and the few remaining sites will probably eventually follow suit. I think party just haven't gotten around to removing it yet - huplo is arbitrarily capped at 0.5/1 (resumes at 25/50). Holdem has mid-stakes, with the addition of anonymous tables which HUPLO also lacks.
I'm honestly not too sure what the logic is there, but I would assume not too many brain cells went into it and it will get the boot with their new 'ecology' changes coming out.

It's honestly fairly pointless to argue at this stage, the precedent was set by 888, but really hammered home when stars made the change. Sites will act exclusively in their own interest and they want to limit win-rates. Proficient HU cash players can sustain large win-rates over large samples, and this is simply not good for the 'ecology'.

Anything they say is about protecting recs is not the real reason this is being done. The more they try to limit edges, the more necessary it is for people to behave in a predatory way, so the whole argument is, in my opinion, a pile of ****.

I will give credit to WPN that their official line of "hucash no longer fits into our business model" was at least honest.

The entire lobbies on Chinese apps have been held by Solver Bots in HUNL and HUPLO that were destroying everyone. There is no point in having HU anymore really.
It is solved there are real time GTO bots smashing anyone there and there is all sorts of scummy **** still happening in HU. For example Ghosting being massive issue.

I think HU games rape the **** out of the fish too fast and take away from the rings games which are already in a horrible shape. No HU tables= more liquidity easily.

I'm someone that plays a good amount of HU.

When you compare the player pool of heads up players vs 6max players this theory of recs losing to heads up players is way over exaggerated, like have you seen how many heads up games run on pokerstars at anyone time? very little, 10 to 25 players playing heads up at peak and mostly playing $0.25/$0.50? most times its 5 to 10 players playing on average heads up zoom, while there is thousands of players playing 6max, thousands not 10-25 and most of the 10 to 25 playing heads up are regs.

As I said nearly all the best players play heads up and these same players are the ones who promote the sport and attract players to the game, their poker favorites, idols etc, this itself outweighs the few recs that sit and play heads up versus the regs.

Plumber A: did you see that? Crazy HU action at 25/50 between xyz and zyx!
Carpenter B: Awesome! I’ve never played poker, let’s deposit $50k and go for it!

Like that?

I am somewhat surprised that HU is still around at Stars, but maybe their changes enabled them to limit winrates to an acceptable level for them? Every dollar that gets withdrawn from a regular account is a dollar they can’t rake. Poker platforms don’t like dollars they can’t rake.

You might as well go a bit more unrealistic.

Sheep herder A: did you see that? Crazy HU action at 25/50 between xyz and zyx!
Sheep herder B: Awesome! I’ve never played poker, let’s deposit two goats and go for it!

Like that?




Your missing the point, the pool at peak on pokerstars is 25 players playing head up while thousands are playing 6max and heaps are colluding, bots etc.

Because of the few recs who prefer to play heads up (not thousands but a few), you want to eliminate the game totally which attracts newbie poker players who rail top heads up players playing each.


I'll repeat few recs not thousands.

ACR removed them to save money is a direct quote from the CEO of ACR, not because of blah blah blah protecting players from cheating etc

the whole HU rec-poaching theory never has made sense to me. im sure it happens, especially with rich recs who are strongish players and want to battle the best, but for the most part it doesnt seem that plausible.

They removed hu bc theyre losing money on the tables compared to fr. The players that play hu are game starters in pools w/out hu, and the ones who will sit and play when 1 player is sitting. I was just getting going in hu when wpn took it away, so I am always down to either open sit in a lobby or play when I see 1/6 next to a table. The sites I play on benefit greatly from that as other players will join once cards are in the air. Compare this scenario to me sitting 1 other guy hu for hours and its a no brainer for the site to take hu away. They know I'll still play and start games, but this way others can join and the cap on rake can increase to 6 player rake etc

Pretty accurate summation.

(You want to play HU ? Go start a game at a 6 max table. A benefit for the poker common is created thereby.)

[QUOTE=Gzesh;55188154

(You want to play HU ? Go start a game at a 6 max table. A benefit for the poker common is created thereby.)[/QUOTE]

lmao. before the 1st hand is over, the other 4 seats will have been taken by the scripters.

Really ? If so, should a site, or the other players, tolerate your own private abattoir of a HU format versus a more popular one ?

If within one hand, a table will instantly expand the number of players engaged in play by 6, instead of 2, is that a net gain to players as a whole of four more seats in action ?

That much more poker being played = a better public product = more revenue/hand & less revenue charged per player per hand .... ? See, post 12 above for a view contrary to yours.

Yea? why not?

this only happens when one of the players is a fish. a new table is often started with top regs playing shorthanded. a shorthanded/hu 6max table will generally not fill until a recreational joins. in most cases the recreational player will join the 6max shorthanded table because they aren't interested in sitting on waiting lists, and a new game will form because of this.

the only people that really benefit from HU tables are HU regs, and the small percentage of recs who only want to play HU.

Dude you must be smoking crack! I play hu all the time cuz I'm a table starter and rec players donate like it's their job. Stop talking about things you don't know about.

All you gotta do is pull up your tracker and go to the # of players tabs and you can see that a decent player can pull out way more bb/100 from hu from everyone especially a fish then if they were playing 6max or 9max.


Put the damn crack pipe down bro! Your brain isn't working to well on that stuff.

It doesn't work like that.
let's say there is 5 regs and 1 fish. On average regs have 2bb/100, and rake is 6bb/100.
5*(6+2)= 40bb/100 that 1 fish has to lose to them for them to have on average +2bb/100.
He also pays rake so -46bb


Argument that there are gto bots for hu so it should be removed is not good cause in few years(if not already) there will be same for ring games so we should find some other solution

Also the "gto bots" are a small minority on non stars sites, and are not actually gto bots and far from perfect. Top humans still make way more than those bots.

I don't think there are recs and fish at HU tables, so whoever sat down likely know what they've signed up for.

* top humans with live aid.

I also refer to humans with live aid as bots. They aren't as many as those as this thread seems to believe, atleast for HUNL.

simple demand and supply issue..
Not that much demand

But there are a heap of games on pokerstars and every other site which have less demand, what just ban them all?

Every site should have every game offered if its less demand so what they just open less tables if players want more tables they open them anyway. Sometimes I want to play HU NLHE other times might play omaha or mix games, banning a format because it doesn't supply much action is crazy,