ah so it's a test is it, how stupid of me i should of realised that it was obviously just a test ( of our level of trust for party poker )

It has to asked that if nobody noticed this change then how long would this so called test on continued on for under the radar?

Oh in that case it's fine then! Come on, really? This is like Hitler being all like


Respond to 3 things if you want to spin this in a good light:

1) How exactly do you defend to make it impossible for certain players to play on certain tables?

2) Is this a legal thing to do according to your regulator? How about your seperate licenses such as France?

3) Why wasn't Partypoker transparant about this? Were they so delusional that they thought that nobody would notice?

Glad to see that Hitler has made his trademark cameo appearance in this thread; it's officially a serious discussion on the internet now!

You actually think online poker is regulated? The 'regulators' are hand picked by the sites that they 'regulate'. Alderney, after letting Full Tilt rapidly drain away player funds, praised their own regulation and claim they did their job perfectly. After Absolute/UB had a high level execute create and share super-user accounts taking millions from players in the process, they were fined a back breaking $50,000.

Online poker licenses mean less than squat until you start seeing unified regulation where the sites are somehow forced to opt-in. For instance in the US when all sites will end up likely being regulated by the Nevada Gaming Commission. But for now lol online poker.

If someone could point me to how Party is breaking their gambling license that would be appreciated.

Otherwise, businesses are allowed to run their business in whichever way they want as long as they do not discriminate against a protected class(if any of you think winning poker players are a protected class then LOL at you.).

If you wish to show your displeasure leave their site, if you are unwilling to do this then continue playing and don't complain. If enough leave and it affects their bottom line they will change. If enough stay then there is no reason for them to change their policy.

I will never understand the entitlement that people feel especially in regards to the way a business chooses to operate. They are the ones that get to make the decisions based on their business model, your decisions are limited to being a patron, or not.

omg the stories about party poker staff and administration being completely braindead are actually true.

thats all you have to say about it? how about some clarifications about exactly how that ****ed up system actually works?

From looking at the video on the OP, it is clear that they aren't segregating the player pool entirely.

If you are sat down at a tough table and a seat opens up anyone can sit down at it.

What can't happen is the toughest regs (dunno what % of the player pool) can't bum-hunt the weakest players (again, dunno what %).

I can certainly see how this is good for the game in the long run. It will potentially allow losing players to lose more slowly while they learn the game. Just like many current winning (or at least half-decent losing) players did when they started.

can you at least f tell us how this segregation exactly works, in terms of how exactly the pool is being segregated?


also this

This is what I'm starting to think as well. As a recreational player who does not practice table selection myself, I might even open up an account on Party now

also i get that this is hard to implement but the players who should be the most affected shouldnt be the one with the higher winrate, who are more likely to start tables, but the ones with the worst bumhunting behaviors. (sitout, bumhunting breakeven scums)

This appears to be the case, losing players can still sit with tough players, just not the other way around.

Yes, because regulations in Alderndey (or whatever) doesn't work then regulations in Nevada surely will. In 5 years you'll be lamenting about Nevada Gaming Commision the same way you do about Alderney now. Nothing will change besides that regulators in Nevada will take bigger cut.

It's welfare-state mentality, I guess.

Just ban all additional software, get rid of HUDs, trackers, fishfinders, make anonymous tables etc. but don't scam your loyal customers. it is insane already how much rake that poor software and weak support costs. Really makes me sick. Call the game you offer idiot lolker instead. Srsly banning and punishing players for playing a skill game with skill. You guys at PP must hate the game. Someone should inform the UK gambling authorities about this hoax. Hope your stocks go down and will never rise again.

****ing disgusting

Even if i was a fish ****OFF, I mean Im not good enough to play the best?? GTFO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I want to know if I'm being segregated. I have this right as a player at your site, is it PartyPoker?

Bullsh*t.

There will be players making their first ever deposit this month on a site who will, in 6 months time, be better than you. They just wanted it more and were really dedicated to being the best that they could be at the game.

I wish I was like that, but I just don't have it. I'm not smart enough, or dedicated enough, to crush the game. However, I never did feel like the game owed me a living, anyway. Why should it owe you, if you can't even beat unimaginitive small stakes regs? Guys move up because they are able to work out what they, and you, do too frequently, or not enough, and exploit it.

How many 'hardworking regulars' are just showing up for work, clock-watching, and waiting for the cheque, so they can bitch about it?

yes but we dont know where is the cutoff in terms of winrate. i am a tough player with a high winrate who starts some table, if the cutoff is at say 2bb\100 hands, why shouldnt i be able to join a recreational player when a bad reg who bumhunts and never starts table, but has a winrate of 1bb\100 be able to?

Ridiculous for not informing the players about this beforehand.
Any chance of me considering playing at party its gone.

I was ready to chastise PP if it was players only playing with similar players but if this is actually how it is, I like it as long as sng/tournaments are untouched except heads up.

PP should really clarify how this works, dont see a reason why it should be so secretive.

We obviously need numbers to know, but I think segregating at any net withdrawals (including transfers) over deposits is likely a good metric, and it wouldn't surprise me if that's what they used.

EDIT: I guess they'd also need to have like total deposits * X as account balance as well, for people who don't withdraw regularly.

It was done with the same mentality as the iPoker split as it seems, just not as smooth. I think it was a good idea (despite the lack of a PR), Party is known for their tougher-than-avg cash tables and hordes of bumhunters.

After this maybe some people will want to play and save Party from going broke once and for all (which I pray to happen every day, f***ing rigged software lol)

Lol aka we want more rake. Well played party.

This is truly disgusting. As if all the rakeback rigging going around in recent years weren't enough of a moneygrab as it was, now this? I can't play on Party but if I could I'd rather face another incentives cut across the board than to have the playing field itself tilted against me. It's only slightly different from banning winning players, and in some ways it's worse because they are attempting to straight up drain what's left in their accounts via rake rather than ask them to leave. I guess if they could do it they would simply ban the winners and confiscate their accounts. Would hate to see this kind of doctoring become commonplace.

Edit: And before anyone points it out, yes, I realize that it probably won't work nearly to the extent they expect it to. It may even hurt their bottom line. But it's the sheer principle of it and the specter of it becoming a common practice amongst poker sites that is so gross.

Good on Party for taking care of the bum hunters.