working harder, including paying someone to deny 100% of action to hold the table while you sleep? surely you can agree that is a little ridiculous and it's very unlikely that FTP would give their blessing to this practice.

errr a lot of posts have pointed out why it is a good idea and my post showed it's very easily implemented by the software

Level right? you realize those of us who want KOTH are actually looking to try to make more money... right?

Funny how 98% of all succesful players preach table selection yet HU table selectors AKA "bum-hunters" are considered bottom of the barrel. Every player should be given the right to choose who to play, and if they want to sit at a table for 48hrs waiting for the right opponent that's their issue, just not always at the top of the list.

Random listing and a maximum #tables that your not playing should definently be introduced tho.

I have to agree with this but would def. welcome a decent solution to the way tables are available you shouldn't be allowed to sit at the top tables and keep them on lockdown for hrs upon hrs

Okay, a lot of people seem to be confusing bum-hunting with table selection, and it's really starting to piss me off.

Bumhunter Bob plops down at a 25/50 table and sits out. Regular Rob wanders over and attempts to play Bumhunter Bob, but Bob refuses. Rob goes and sits down at his own table and waits for someone to play him. Along comes Frank the Fish, who sits down at Bob's table because it's the first one he sees. So Bob gets all of Frank's action even though he was unwilling to play Rob.

Now imagine that this occurred in a real casino, in the context of one full-ring table. Six good regulars and three weak-ish regulars are playing, and one guy is just chilling on the rail. One of the weaker regulars leaves, and the railbird sits down and says that he's going to wait for his blind to come around. Play continues, and when his blind comes around, he gets a phone call and has to sit out another orbit. The next time his blind comes around, he has to go to the bathroom. Just before his blind comes around a third time, one of the strong regulars leaves and a huge fish sits in. Suddenly, the railbird is ready to post his blind. You think that the regulars are going to stand for this? Hell no! If the railbird wasn't willing to play a single hand against them, they're not going to let him have a piece of their fish.

What's the difference? There is none, really. Also, what ac on said is entirely true: bumhunters don't pay any rake that wouldn't be paid anyway. Since they only play fish, who would never want for action even if bumhunters didn't exist, the site makes $0 off them that they weren't going to make regardless. All the bumhunters do is piss off the regulars and scare the fish.

Although I agree with the changes, and want to see them happening it really is frustrating to see people still comparing online and live poker - the two are completely different. Sure, it's the same card game but that's about where it stops.

very good point.

Somehow the fish still manages to sit down and play, at least they do on my tables. Go figure.

Besides, I know a couple fish in real life, who occasionally donk off some money on Party or FTP at 25/50 NL or 10/20 etc. They have no idea about what's going on, who are regs, who are bumhunters, who to play or not to play, order of the tables, or anything for that matter. They just want to play some cards and see if they win.

They just pick a table randomly from the list without scrolling down, load 30bb or so and proceed to lose it or double and leave, then close the software with a big smile regardless of the outcome. Witnessed it many times.

They play for the thrill, they like poker, and can afford losing a few k's per month, they don't even know they are fish.

The biggest difference in your example is that you're not describing a HU table. Therefore, all you said does not apply to this topic.

As for bumhunters not paying any rake, this is just ridiculous, not worth even commenting.

I don't see how exactly bumhunters scare the fish. At the very least, fish should be scared more of the best regs than of bumhunters, since the best regs are going to take the fish's money quicker (paying less rake in the process btw, but I'm sure you're going to ignore this argument).

Answer from FTPDoug:

When he says "1/2" he's using the picture I made in the OP as a reference.

So their fix will be that the "top" table will be seen as different for everyone.

Thanks Doug!

You don't have the right to anything just because someone told you about Internet poker, you memorized a starting hand chart and couldn't cut it in 6max where you have to compete with other players.

Scenario 1: Fish sits down with bumhunter and $20 in rake is paid before he busts.

Scenario 2: Fish sits down with non-bumhunter and $20 in rake is paid before he busts.

These situations are identical from FTP's end. Bumhunters don't contribute any extra rake and their absence would not cause an absence of rake.

The best rake will hardly exploit fish any faster because it's so simple to exploit fish. The best regs are the best because they can exploit regs, too. It's no wonder you're a bumhunter if you don't even understand how poker works.

Wow. They don't like HU because of predatory gambling but then their "solution" is "equal fish for everyone!"

Does this mean that the rest of the tables will still be in alphabetical order? If so, the problem could still exist. Changing only the top table might not be enough.

I am very glad to see something coming of this.

This sounds like what he is saying but I can't imagine they could possibly think this fixes the problem? It's a start but definitely not the fix everyone is looking for. All tables need to be random for each client.

Why does HU have empty or 1-player tables anyway?

Why not just have a list of players waiting to play HU?

You can select someone to play from the wait list, click 'play HU', add yourself to the end of the wait list, or wait list an already active table like normal.

If you click 'play HU' you sit with the first person on the wait list. If player A sits out then player B has the option of booting player A to the end of the wait list and player B maintains their wait list position.

This gets rid of all of the lobby clutter.
Fish can quickly get a game without messing with a cluttered lobby.
Players that don't refuse action will stay at the head of the list.


I haven't thought through this thoroughly but the way HU works needs a complete overhaul, not just minor tweaks. Dozens of 1-player tables is not a good thing. It looks bad to the fish.

Ya I agree afer re-reading, they should def reorganize the top 15 tables or so. Just changing the top table will still make table #2 bumhunter's paradise. And they still didn't address table priority to the person not sitting out.

not to pile on, but you hit the nail on the head sir

so tilting if this is the "fix"... it shows a lack of understanding of the problem.

randomize table order within stake level is closer to being correct.

WoT

Given what you say, a top reg such as yourself contributes as much rake as a bumhunter. Therefore there's at least no difference from the FTP's point of view. But I think FTP's interest is letting the fish play for as long as possible in order to generate maximum rake in the process, therefore:

FYP in bold. The best reg will most likely exploit a fish better than a lowlife bumhunter such as me since I don't even understand how poker works.

Seriously though, let's say player F is a fish, player A is a marginally winning reg that wins only because he table selects^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbumhunts and plays lame ABC poker with no glamour nor class. Player B is a killer pro who soulreads and can play close to GTO if needed. Whose winrate will be higher vs player F, A's or B's?

The bigger the winrate, the smaller the rake.

Exactly, so we have the same rake coming from the fish as we would have before, but now regs are forced to fight for tables, which means additional rake on top of what the fish pay.

ABC poker is all that either one will play versus fish, obviously. It's not as if the best regs have the gift of being able to bluff calling stations. GTO will not be needed against a fish - it could actually make the fish last longer. ducy?

Yeah, basically this. This is pretty much what I was referring to when I said that people thinking that when this thing goes live that they are now going to show up and beat up on those 2/4nl regs they have an edge on will just be in for a surprise when realizing their table slots are filled by a bunch of players who play anything from 2/4-5/10 whom the previous 2/4nl winner now can't beat. So now they become a 1/2nl reg or lower. It pretty much would force down the action by groupings of stakes since top MSNL regs would be willing to play 2/4-5/10nl. So someone who might be good enough to beat 2/4nl can't even play there and has to go to 1/2nl, which forces down the previous 1/2nl players which forces down others as well. Basically it creates a system where in order to have access to the fish of 2/4 and 3/6 you have to be able to beat 5/10nl regs. A player that's good enough to beat other 2/4nl regs but not 5/10nl regs won't even be able to play the non BH'ing 2/4 regs as often because they won't even be sitting now because they are driven off the tables.

Yeah. I'm not even arguing for/against bumhunting with regards to whats fair -- that's too subjective and better left for a different discussion. It's clear why the top players want it, even though I think a lot of naieve cheerleaders would be in for a reality check if it were implemented. Case and point the $20 sng player below:

You've been brain washed or are just blinded by your ego driven delusion. Just because someone bumhunts doesn't mean they can't win at 6m. There's winning 1/2nl and 2/4nl 6m regs that realized they could make more money bumhunting who switched not because they couldn't win anymore, but because they play for a living and it made the most financial sense. The games essentially would get tougher for everyone if this got implemented since players who are good enough to beat 25/50nl HU right now wouldn't even be able to play it once the higher stake regs who can't get fish or action at nosebleeds just move down and start wreaking havoc on regs who then move down along with everyone else. Not like CTS and Durrrr are gonna start battling over a table that a fish is unlikely to ever sit at anyway at those stakes so they'd just grind 25/50nl regs. As others have said, the only beneficiaries of this are the elite players. No other regs should be cheerleading this really -- as you'll be taking a paycut.

The only thing really worth debating is whether it's in the sites best interest, as what's in the regs best interest here is pretty much irrelevant. Sure you can try to make a case for it morally but if it's not profitable for the site to do then it's just a waste of breath. There has been no proof this is in the sites best interest and the one site that did do it got rid of it and I imagine if they felt the prior method was more profitable they would have reverted back to it.

expect a great new post/thread on this...coming soon.

he pretty much nails the issue imo.

Hey guys,

Quick bump with a PM from Doug, posted w/ his permission:

with my system, this wouldn't happen because players are only allowed 1 empty table per stake level. so if they have an empty, and sit with someone who doesn't want to play, the original person sitting keeps the table. The only way the original person gets kicked off is the person who wants action doesn't have an empty table (at that stake level).

I'm reposting my system here because it's by far the best grouping of suggestions made so far:

Wilt, IMO your system is an overly complicated solution to the problem, that doesn't truly fix it.

The problem is, some tables are better than others.

The current situation is, that inferior players can get and keep these better tables and there's nothing that the good players can do about it.

Your solution just allows the better players to gain control of these good tables. Most people agree this is more 'fair' then letting worse players have the good tables.

The correct solution (imo) is to just fix the actual problem. Make it so there are no longer good tables. There is a very simple, one step solution to do this: Randomize the tables.

Mark