The only thing reasonable seems to be making people on waiting lists play. But, if there was no time limit, they would sit at the table, scan for recreational players, leave if there were none and then reenter the waiting list. You just turn the bum hunting into a lottery. So, then you might add time limits to reentering the waiting list. Now you've just made the lottery take longer. I don't think people are going to play if they don't see a definite edge anymore. That's just how it is. Maybe there is a way to give a boost in the action through artificial means, but aren't the games just going to evolve naturally? It's going to be difficult or impossible to stop that evolution? Maybe the best we can do is try and stop the worst behaviours like buttoning, sitting out and sitting in with the recreational players, trying to steal players, etc... All of these can probably be stopped by the sites in some way through some kind of rules or a reporting mechanism (already being used at Stars). But, in the end, the games aren't going to all of a sudden get better with formally edge-nitty regs wanting to play each other.

I'm not saying we shouldn't work to improve the games, but I'm just not convinced any of these will really do much, but delay a natural evolution of the games. Like Hood said, many of these suggestions have already been implemented and they just made the games worse.

By the way webcams would be a nice idea and could add alot more fun playing.

Absolution is right. Things are much more competive now then they were a couple years back. Back then people game selecting as well and games were breaking when fish left. At least where I played.

If you take away the option from people to take plus EV spots and force them to play in games where eventually everyone would loose to rake nobody will play at all.

A thought occurs. With PS changing their rake calculation methods which hurts a regs ability to generate FPP/VPP, and this discussion on changes that would have a negative impact on a regs bottom line, is there a movement to eradicate the current pro/income model? If so, who benefits?

1. Screen Name Changes

I’m personally not a huge fan of these, because I feel like a big part of poker is getting to know your opponent and adjusting to him. People changing their screen name, effectively wipes all reads clean every now and then.
I could live with this change if the changes weren’t too frequent(maybe once every few months at the most), but am not a fan, because it takes away so much from the game.

2. Anonymous HU tables (or 6m tables)

Not really a fan of this for the same reason as #1. It just takes away from the game, because it becomes impossible to develop longterm reads and thus makes the game less interesting.

3. HU Tables/Lobby

I’m all for KotH personally. I think there’s a better way to go about getting HU matches going than the rightclick someone at a 6maxtable thing.
On Pokerstars already you can just create a Homegame and play there(although you might need to get your stakes increased, once you have it set up though it works brilliantly). Other pokersites don’t have to implement Homegames, they can just allow players to create private password protected tables.

4. Round Robin Tables/Games (Similar to Rush Poker)

Kinda dislike this for the same reason as #1 and #2, it takes longer to develop reads and history, which is a big part of poker. And yeah seperation of player pools aswell if it is offered besides the regular games. I prefer this over #1 and #2 though, because you still do develop some reads+history, just takes longer than it currently does.

5. Must Move Tables

This is just too awesome!!! Implement this for 6m/FR games IMMEDIATELY imo. 2(3 if they want to keep fast tables) lists per limit and let people sign up for this list. When there are 4+ players, start the table.
You could also ONLY show the potentially anonymous signup list and not the active tables(like rush poker) and thus solve the tracking sites problem at the same time.
You might still want to show the 50/100+ tables though for railbird purposes.

6. Rewards/Promotions for Game Starters and Hands Played

I’m not sure this’ll do any bad or good. I guess it might be good for me as I tend to start tables, but don’t think it’ll help the games that much overall and maybe only cost pokersites some money. In the current games you could maaaybe reward people enough to start 2-3 handed games, but then it’d still take a weak player to get the game to fill up beyond that point. Just implement mustmove and this isn’t even needed anymore.

The other kind of rewards were basically just variations to happy hour. Which would be kinda fun I guess to see some variations, but happy hour does reward everyone equally while your ideas mostly benefit the massive multitablers.

7. Addressing the Button War Problem, Games INSTA-breaking

I somewhat liked someone’s idea to pay time instead of rake online, although the time probably has to be a lot more than it is live or else the pokersites will suffer a lot? You’d also have to solve the issue of people joining and leaving tables without paying time. So you’d probably have to make people pay time individually when they join. This would make people reluctant to jump into 2-3 handed games though having to pay time immediately playing in a game that is more likely to die. Having people pay time once every ~10 minutes might solve this, but this doesn’t seem like the greatest idea afterall.

Not exactly sure on how to solve this, but I think the must move tables would certainly help create a system where this is going to be less common.

So bottom line is: IMPLEMENT MUST MOVE TABLES!!!



EDIT: The take break instead of sitout idea seems like a good way to fix #7. Sort of lets cash game players take breaks just like the synchronized MTT breaks that were implemented a while ago.

Lol I can tell you first hand it's wrong. I've had live fish talk to me specifically about how lame it is when they try to play online and I've even had people online talk to me about it in chat.

Of course not all fish just play till they bust then leave. Some people might be whipping out their credit cards to redeposit and keep their seat, then they look back in when they have funds and voila the game isn't running but runs as soon as they click 'sit in'. I know it'd be a nice thought but not all fish are morons, and you'd have to be a huge idiot to not realise something is going on when that happens.

What evidence are you hoping to hear? Your whole view is just so simplistic. Maybe if the sites were getting lots of complaints they'd just do something about it? Ya, sure it just takes a day of programming to solve this massive bumhunting problem and its OBV a one dimensional issue. Evidence? No problem, I have a database here of fish who have complained when noticing people sitting out when they bust....

Stars employ Russ Hamilton, advertise it globally "Theres a cheater amongst us"

put in loads of "Ouuuu"s and "Aaaahhh"s and ask "Will you be robbed this month, find out on Pokerstars"

Everyone thinks WTF worst advert ever, downloads stars anyway and before ya know it the world is playing tournaments

problem solved

they don't make em like they use to.. not enough influence, i guess.. you multi millionaire poker players.. it's too bad u r gonna let em run your home game and your home game.

and i thought my post was stupid

A couple of ideas

When a player clicks join a table and they are to be seated into a game that is already started you don't seat the player or even show the table until it is his BB and he is seated and auto posted. I'm not quite sure how to handle this with a new table starting though.

Another thing if they switch to must move is that they shouldn't do the standard "chain" of tables like in live poker. There are far too many tables and if say at 2/4 there are 25 tables running they should setup the must move order in some type of pyramid or mesh method where they have one main game but multiple paths to that main game. If you use a standard chain there would be far too much moving of players.

Also another idea is for example you are playing 5 tables of 6m and want to add a table, you just click a btn that says add table and it auto adds you to the list to join another table. Say you want to play one less table you click a button that will take away a table, but you don't get to choose which table is eliminated. Once you have been removed from a table, you can't add a new one for x.

PS seemed very uninterested in a lot of the same suggestions I made to them some months ago. I like the table move idea but I doubt any of the HU suggestions will be taken seriously. Their main argument is that changing SNs/anon tables just removes a lot of the benefits of long-term play (like e-cart said).

Personally, I like the idea of changing SNs as it WOULD promote short-term action. However it wouldn't take long before people who to avoid and who to play. Anon tables are totally useless and quite annoying in many ways I won't get into.. also they would help bots stay undetected for even longer.

KOTH, i've come to accept just helps the top 2% of players and doesn't really promote action. All it promotes is "ok" players at 5/10 playing 1/2 and destroying the "very good" players at that level. It funnels the skill levels towards the bottom of the stakes, making it extremely hard to ever move up.

global seat list + pogressive time penalty for peaople who sit out. Looks like a very good solution.

And lol at people saying players will go to other sites. Bumhunters go were the game is +ev so they will just follow the recreationnal players

This part of your post is a joke. First, you make up a statistic. KOTH has never been implemented, so proclaiming that it will only help 2% of players is a lie.

KOTH, depending on how it's implemented, will produce action. You either play or you don't. How that's anything other than good for poker, and sites in general, I know not.

Tell me, what does the current system do to funnel players? I'll tell you, it funnels everything down a toilet bowl to where 2% of players actually get to play hands. 1) they are lucky to get action 2) they sit at as many tables as possible. See, I can make up statistics too. But my overall point is way more close to the truth than what you claimed.

You honestly think the status quo is something that should continue? I mean, really KOTH is the only solution to changing the HU landscape and it's been that way for years. Prevents table whores from being table whores, bum hunters from being bum hunters. Will make people either attempt at playing semi competent HU players or play other forms of poker like 6m, 9m, PLO, etc etc -- all good things for poker in general and poker sites explicitly.

Again, you can't argue this based on any stats (as KOTH has yet to exist), but I am arguing it against what I've seen for years now -- people sitting out constantly and clogging lobbies. Make people play or leave. It's that simple and it's that pure.

I realy like this!!!!!!

GET THE FAK OUT OF YOUR COMFORT ZONE

1. Screen Name Changes

I am not for Name Changes. Why should a guy I have played with for months get a brief edge on me? Think about live play, If I played someone live for half the amount i play some regs online I would NEVER forget what they look like or how the generally play.

Also, I think screen names will help with the next poker boom. We will need some new American Poker celebs

2. HU tables

I like a "folder" system. Where if someone was playing 8 HU tables, they would show up under the same "TAB" something like

MrSweets (8 tables) click to expand
HUnit1986 (15 tables) Click to expand
RandomDonk (1 table)

And it shows all your HU tables regardless of playing multiple levels. IF a rec player wants to sit down with a guy who has 8 HU tables open under his tab, thats his prerogative. And the less cluttered look would def help.

3. Round Robin Tables/Games (Similar to Rush Poker)

I think this will eventually happen, I dont play much HU so I might play the rush style

4. Must Move Tables

I like it. Few exceptions, the wait list system should be kept as is. Currently You can get on a "single table" wait list or the "global wait" list. I like that, what I dont like is logging on to see a wait list of 15 on one table b/c a donk is there. Once a list gets over 6, they should start a table and wait there to get on the donks table.

For two reasons

1) the rec player won't feel like a fish. Instead of saying "15 waiting" is just shows "must join 'must move' table to get on wait list"
2) half the players on the list won't play a table of regs. They will leave the must move table and forfeit their turn on the waitlist giving the reg who gives the most action a bonus by moving up on the list


5. HUDs

I might be in the minority here, but I think huds help most for playing against regs and to help multitabling. Fish are easy to pick and easy to play against, they almost never play long enough for the HUD to even matter

6. Addressing the Button War Problem, Games INSTA-breaking

This one is tough. It doesnt bother me THAT much, but when the rec player is sitting out and players sit out that REALLY bothers me.

My friends and I were debating the HU topic more and came to this sorta understanding/agreement would be best:

Rush poker type lobby.
You can see who's in there but not who's playing who.
You join once. Once you get a table, you can rejoin again if you want another opponent. This should prolly be capped.
The best players are guaranteed to get at least 10-15 minutes (adjustable obv, maybe 15 is better min) of action from people. Or if a player loses a predetermined amount (50bb-100bb?) They are permitted to find a new opponent.
The rest of the players aren't necessarily forced to play the best players at those stakes.
The best players don't necessarily get the fish.
You can multi table vs the person you're matched up against if you agree to it.
Prevents ratholing completely and HNRing somewhat.


I would add a "Battle for the Top" sub section to the global lobby where you're entered into a match with someone else who enters. You play till one quits (or maybe they are timed matches, like 30-1hr and person who is up at the end moves on // prolly should be options for both timed and "till someone quits" formats) and then are pitted against another opponent within the KOTH lobby (your 4, 8, 16 person lobby), and play till someone quits.

Say there are lobbies for like 2, 4, 8, and 16 "KOTH matches", and the last man remaining gets some sort of reward...16 prolly be too many (without time limits) but u get the idea. And prolly shouldn't get reward for battles between 2 players...?

Global lobby would certainly create action which is exactly what HU NLHE needs and poker sites should implement.

The whole poker industry needs to change one big thing:

Their websites.


Try to figure out:

- how much rake a pokersite takes by searching on their website. I need at least 10-20 minutes of searching for this, because its intentionally hidden in a dark corner.

- how much rake SNGs cost in %. Ah you cant, you need an account there first to see that, because many sites dont offer an observer mode.

- how a first deposit bonus works like chilipoker, they offer 5!!! different versions of this bonus

- VIP/Reward point mechanics. Each site has a complex way to give out those points


All this "really valueable" information could be written down in 2 pdf pages, but instead you need to waste 30-60 minutes to figure out how their BS system works, but only if you are able to find all the pieces hidden. For example you earn reward and status points, but at different rates; you cant find rake tables, you got to click every stupid link for a piece of information. Then put this puzzle together...
Figuring this stuff out is very annoying.

These widely spread methods of camouflage-ing(?) VALUEABLE information (like rake, the only income of pokersites), takes away alot of trust into the industry.


Imagine a site saying, for EXAMPLE "First deposit bonus":
100% up to 500$ FDP - but you need to pay 2000$ rake to clear that - and you get this in steps of 10% - meaning 200$ rake paid gives you 50$ back.
Right below this easy explanation is their rake-table.
They arent hiding anything from you, they are honest. They are telling you how they earn their money and how this FDP works.
They also have an easy to understand reward system that doesnt hide information or is written in a way, that its hard to understand.
Most of the fish (i once thought this too), believe that they cashin 20$ and have 40$ to play.
Once again, this is just an example of misleading information that is given out by webpages.
The FDP is not that important, but the point is that information is beeing kept hidden and this frustrates people.

Such a site (above) would be honest, i would respect their honesty and would put my trust in them. Unfortunately the whole industry is trying to hide "something" from the players. News about superusers and fulltilt allready busted the trust people put into poker, the sites just do the rest for themselves. A honest site that does not hide things but trys to be easy to understand and shows information would be much more appealing to those having lost their trust.

I think Screen name changes is the best change of rules pokerstars could implement and in my mind partly solves the insta-break problem etc.

What do you guys think am I wrong thinking installing the option to change your screen Name would prevent games from breaking by a little?

Screen name changes.

pretty well said

I've already said this once in this thread but I'm going to say it again, because I've seen many many people put forth the same thought. I think its very foolish and simplistic to assume that the reason Phil is putting forth these innovative ideas for online poker is for personal financial gain. Naturally, if some of these ideas were implemented in the online poker world, the world class players would surely benefit. But they wouldn't benefit because of some unfair advantage, the benefit would simply lie in the increased traffic, more games constantly running, and basically more hands being dealt on the sites. And isn't what this is all about? Having as much traffic as possible?

Black Friday was massively detrimental to the online poker world. Some might even say that it's in jeopardy. I wholeheartedly agree with Phil in that some of the happenings on poker sites (HU bumhunting, instant sitouts, button wars, etc) are seriously harming the future of the game. There are 2 types of poker players; the recreational player and the reg. What's going to happen when, because of the actions of soooooooooo many online regs, the recreationals stop coming back entirely? Obviouslythe games will dry completely, because it's becoming more and more abundantly clear that a huge percentage of regs refuse to sit at a table full of regs.

Therefore, anything that the sites do to encourage more recreational players playing is of tremendous importance. I endorse almost every aspect of the ideas that have been put forth in the OP because the future of this industry is in attracting more people, encouraging recreational players that everything is run ethically, and that the site's are doing everything in their power to eliminate the unfair advantages the professionals could potentially be using.

Screen name changes should be allowed fora certain class of player.

It would be easy enuf to clasify players by either win rate, or acct balance or whatever.

an obvious fish should be allowed to disguise himself.

run it twice go

in addition to my post above:

big waitlists and camping for fish is only because there are less fish around. obviously american fish are missing after BF.

priority1: get new fish to poker
priority2: keep old fish happy

changing screennames, must move tables, hu-folder etc... that is just priority2.
imo old-fish will quit poker sooner or later => they die out

the goal needs to be to get new fish to poker, not to keep old ones happy. with 10% more fish theres less waitlist camping, less bumhunting and theres no need for crazy sitout tactics anymore...

more fish=more tables for me to bumhunt