lol not sure if trolling or an idiot. Of course a business can choose how to operate if they don't break any laws. We are not sure wether Partypoker didn't break any laws though, they have licenses for several regulated markets that have additional laws that need to be complied.

You are however forgetting the right of the customer: to ****ing complain. Raising awareness to scummy practices a certain business uses to make money isn't a bad thing to do. You somehow think that you should either not use a business its services or use them and shut up about it? Please, be more naive.

Can you see the same as me at pokerscout orange line?

Ipoker had now more online players than PP! Is tha usual?

The BIGGEST problem with this move: Party is not clear about their new policy and leaves players in the dark as to how it works/will work.

As evidenced by many of the posts in this thread, the biggest problem is Party's lack of communication. They need to explain exactly what will happen now and how it will shift in the future and then let players have discussion. The way they have handled it (quietly implementing this segregation without notifying anyone) makes it seem like this new policy is going to be terrible and really hurt some players.

So all we have to do is open up a bunch of tables and wait for fishes to sit next to us. Like the HUNL players do.

I really enjoy beating up on lesser players at any game like everyone else, but at the same time I enjoy a challenge of another smart player who might modify their style mid-game to gain an advantage.

To say you miss the fish because they made it a game of skill is laughable. Maybe I'm just out of touch with what "skill" in poker apparently means. Is it really skill to beat up on someone who really has no clue what you're doing? I see the argument for yes, but come on. If you can't win unless the person is really bad, do you really have skill?

It's an incredible breach of trust to not show segregated players a message in the client like "Your choice of available tables is currently limited due to your player rating. Click here for more info". Every player who logs onto a poker site expects to see all available tables (except those they have self-excluded from or redundant SNG or HU lobbies).

Agree with this

lol I call that BS too. You dont know anything about me, my game or my motivation regards the theory work. I dont play at PP at all. But wonder about some smartasses like you who will anything buy that some PP officials make up. I am regurlarly sitting as last player at the tables and even sometimes open tables on my own. Making bumhunting harder by regulating the players in transparent and on fair ways but treating regs and recreational gamblers with similar restrictions would be okay for me, even I also looking for profitable tables regurlarly but dont use additional software for that. Whatever I am just concerned such reglementations will make the games unprofitable and kill poker in the long run and the only winner left will be the casino.

How can anyone say this is a good idea?

Basically only fish can use the site now, as no reg who plays to make money, is gonna play 5 other regs... Even if you are a bit better than the others, the bb/100 is gonna be to bad to bother playing.

That's such a misconception. There's a difference between regs being too good to play vs and not wanting to put in the effort to even do so. I believe bumhunting is a product of laziness more than anything else.

Wtf!

Revolution Network/Lock Poker is now doing the same thing.

lol didn't take too long for the Hitler comparison, wp NVG

Yeah this is gross. Honestly feels offensive to the game. When it comes to deciding who can play against who, nudges might be defensible but outright restrictions are not. This is my gut reaction as someone who is unlucky enough to not really have to actually care or think about this ::usflag:: Yes, even if segregation is correct, strongly agree with this. needs more love

Back in the early days of online poker less than 3% of players were regular winning players and there were plenty of bad, mediocre and recreational players to beat. Those days are long gone. In the past 7 years the proportion of above average to good players playing online has consistently increased. This results in fishy players' bankrolls being eaten up quicker and too many nit-fest tables which effectively generates less rake.
In some cases it's the poker sites' fault for using affiliates such as Poker Strategy to recruit members and get sign ups for them. Poker Strategy type sites (nit farms) teach players how to grind out a profit from online poker and they constantly send thousands of new players to almost every online poker site. Not only that but you get a $50 free bankroll to play with courtesy of the poker site.

With all these freeloading nits, ever nittier tables and fish being beaten to death for minimum rake Party Poker have made the right move.

bbfg. You sound like the typical bumhunter who thinks that online poker sites are there for you to make a living. In my opinion Party Poker are right to do what they did for this simple reason.... They're an "entertainment company".

"Entertainment" Where's the entertainment if you're a recreational player sitting down with your weekly $50 deposit only to be swarmed by sharks and you get to play for 5-10 minutes before your money is gone.

"Company" Yes, Party Poker are a company just in case you didn't know. They are here to make a profit and if it means preventing the bumhunters from allowing the recreational players generate as much rake as possible then that's what they're entitled to do.

let me help you

test results = massive fail = fix it asap

I personally think the Party idea is likely not going to work. But I am not really sure. You just have to question what generates more rake for party:

1. 6 Fish playing 1 table against each other on one table for X hands.

or

2. 6 fish and 30 regs playing against each other on six tables for Y hands, where Y is a fraction of X (because the fish go bust *way* faster, plus are less likely to come back).

I don't really know which generates more rake - I am not saying this rhetorically. I don't know how to quantify it. Is X really greater than or equal to 6Y? Who knows. My intuition says no but maybe I am wrong.

-

Right now fish:reg equilibrium is 1:5. The poker economy is quite content with that ratio and would go on forever with it. For every fish sitting at a table, the site can be pretty much guaranteed the table will fill up. Not too bad a situation for any of us, even if it isn't 2006 poker.

But then folks started complaining. The egotistical regs were complaining about "dem damn bum hunters!!!1!`". And the sites listened and thought about a solution to this perceived problem... while also considering their bottom line. Other sites are thinking about this stuff too. What is going to end up happening is that our 1:5 ratio, the one that many people used to go on about how "poker is dead" over, will suddenly get a lot worse.

If table policies are put into effect then this ratio could drop to be on average of 1 fish in only 50% of the hands you're playing. Or even worse. This has other consequences the regs haven't though of, too. Namely, mediocre regs will have to drop out and your other 4 opponents will be that much better also. The decent/good edge you have now could easily degrade quickly due to these factors. Some of you guys might think that the table could become 4 good regs and 2 recreational players, with mediocre regs forced out. But I think that is just naive because these same good regs will just add more tables to fill in those seats. One fish per table at higher stakes is going to be the norm for sure no matter what change you make, assuming you let fish + regs play the table table. Getting rid of table selection is really only shooting yourself in the foot if you care about money.

tldr:

* Party changes might or might not be good for their bottom line, but my intuition says not

* Getting rid of table selection is going to lower everyone's hourly rate including good players

how has this segregation affected HUSNGS?

This is a pretty hilarious situation. In particular the fact that a Party representative has even come in to this thread, where a lot of customers will be reading/complaining about the situation, and not even had the sense to explain how it all works and put some of there better customers (high volume rake earners) minds at ease. I knew their customer service was horrible but this is some of the worst I have ever seen.

Thankfully I haven't played at Party since way back in '07. The good 'ol days! I have a twin brother and they failed to understand that two people could play from the same house with the same DOB and not be the same person. Even after sending in various ID verification.

To be honest, I think this is kind of a brilliant solution under the following conditions:

1. They boot you off a table for an hour when you join a new game and then sit out
2. Once a big fish sits the game becomes "invisible" to winners
3. All tables in the lobby are initially visible to all players when no fish are sitting

This would just reward table starters who play even when no fish sit and punished seat hawking bum hunters who put all of their effort into getting better at sniping seats and none into improving their game.

Previously, there was little incentive to starting a game because your two alternatives were:

1. Play a game with regs while waking for a fish
2. Play zero hands without an edge and snipe in at the last second with a table scanner to steal a seat when the fish sits.

If party is clever though (and they'll probably fk this up anyway because they're not) they can make it so that your alternatives are:

1. Play game with regs waiting for fish
2. Never play with fish

If the incentive system is good, what you will end up with is a bunch of regs playing each other 5 handed waiting for that last seat to fill and the regs who are not good enough to play with the other regs will be forced to drop down in levels. This is how it should be IMO. More action on the site and less predatory environment for fish.

Of course, like I said, this is all hoping that all tables with no fish are viewable by everybody. If they're not then this system is a complete joke of course and no one will win in the long run.

party rep, with such an outcry you think it would be more important for party to shed some more detailed information. Once again the situation is being handled so badly that you will take a huge hit.

I don't know if party realizes but the majority of hands are played by regs, I'd estimate 70-85%. You need to keep fish happy and keep new players coming to the pool so that reg traffic can sustain. If the %'s drop, regs drop, traffic exponentially drops. Regs will not just continue to play each other. There are plenty of places to play and people will just go elsewhere. This act is criminal and discrimination to those that put in effort to improve, and the lack of definitive response, and vague skirting around the questions is sickening.

I don't know who does the thinking there but poker is like a reverse pyramid, regs at the bottom fish at the top, money and players flowing down, cap the players at the top and everyone at the bottom falls away. Thing is, it is not an unfair game because everyone at the top has equal opportunity to move down also at any given moment. It is crazy how you guys did not see the implications.

This is nonsense and a common fallacy on two plus two. Think about it like this:

A poker site is a closed system, only way money comes in is through deposits. Only way it comes out is through withdrawals. The long term difference between these two is eventually consumed as rake.

A reg who never deposits but occasionally withdraws has a net negative impact on this difference and hence a net negative impact on rake.

A fish who deposits regularly but never withdraws has a net positive impact on the difference and hence a net positive impact on rake.

To put it another way, the only way that money comes into the system is through deposits. Hence all poker sites revenue ultimately comes from losing (depositing) players.

The only reason poker sites pander to regs with VIP programs etc is to keep the games going so losing players can always find a game.

Having said that what Party is doing is wrong and scummy.

Andy

Sent from my Nexus 4 using 2+2 Forums

have to agree with this in principle, although not sure thats whats currently going on at party, anything that prevents people from bumhunting / sitting out instantly after a fish busts or leaqves is great imo

cross-poasting from zoo

Just ban softwares. Simple and effective.
Thats real poker

And nobody could circumvent this.