problem is also that the regulars are the ones keeping the sites in business, which is why you see so much catering by stars for their vip program. the fish bust and leave, the regulars keep paying rake and leaving large deposits online

I apologize, I didn't realize my extensive statistical research of the situation required me to come up with an actual percentage of players KOTH will help. I thought "2%" would illustrate the problem pretty well. My point was that king of the hill only helps a very small % of the players. It is hard to argue against this. The nature of KOTH is such that the best players end up with the tables. With my extensive experience playing HU, my estimation is that no more than 5% of players at each limit happen to be a notch or two above their counterparts.

Hence, under a KOTH structure, they would naturally end up with most, if not all, of the tables available.

p.s.: It has been implemented on Party at 5/10 and 10/20 for the longest of times. It doesn't really promote action except for the numerous people trying to "steal tables" without really playing.

You didn't read my post at all it seems. I said the KOTH system funnels players down the stakes. I didn't say the current system does.

Nope. I've been one of the most vocal supporters of KOTH and a ton of other creative methods to help HU games improve but every time I have been met by apprehension from poker sites. The conclusion I came to is that sites only care about profit margins and their business plan starts and ends with casual players, and quite often our proposed changes would hurt those players' ability to make money/have fun.

Here is one of the threads I made on structure changes with multiple suggestions that I sent to Pokerstars: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/58...ight=challenge

Here is a survey I did of HU players: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/58...ghlight=survey

In FR according to statistics of poker it's about 30%

30% winning players seems about right, players that win significantly (sole income etc.) must be well under 5% i would think though.

I agree with the idea that 30% of winners is really a much smaller % of people who are the best of the best. Almost every winning player is using the "evil" methods of seat/game selection to win over rake. Go to any strategy forum, you're likely to see people explaining how to game select and how to get a good seat. If you were to look at stakes where rake matters, most current winning players could not win with KOTH or must move because of the edge they would lose by having to play a reasonable number of hands vs. winning and/or break-even players. It is the first skill people have to learn as they break out of the low micros -- sit at tables where you have an edge.
I think 2% might be optimistic, you're completely correct here. If you're Phil and you'll play anyone, forcing everyone to play is great. The unintended consequence of KOTH or strict must-move is that people will have a much harder time moving up. Since no actual .5/1 player will be in the top 10% of 1/2 players, it will be hard for him to be profitable in a tougher pool. Each additional step up the ladder becomes harder, lacking all the skills for the next limit it is hard to be able to play w/o game selection.

Live, we give people this advice all the time, "Take shots at the next higher limit when the game looks good. Follow known bad players up to higher limit games. That's how you get the experience to move up yourself." If you think of a strict must-move system online, I doubt that will exist. You put your name on the list for a 5/T game, you get seated at the next starting table, and you follow the must move around. You'd better be a strong reg who can beat other regs or you won't survive. At least live there are few enough tables in most casinos that you can look over and seat/game select -- online isn't the only venue where people game select. With more tables online, you can't just look at the one or two running games and know you'll have enough edge to play in both.

I'd be interested in seeing what happens if a site I can play on implements some of these ideas. Still, I think Stake Monster's predictions are likely to be spot on.

The point of the discussion isn't to rig a game that makes bad players money, it's about sustaining the games so everyone can play. The answer to your question is that poker needs new players, that's why it shouldn't be viewed under this "survival of the fittest" paradigm.

must move/global waitlist would be a cluster**** at small stakes. just use it when there are fewer than 5 tables running at given stake (which should be 5/10+ or 10/20+)

You don't need that many "fish" to make a KOTH HU lobby work. The average 2/4 section would probably consist of two dozen 2/4 grinders, 5-6 fish, a few 1/2 grinders who haven't realized they aren't good enough, and 3-4 grinders on downswings who play 3/6+. Check out this thread in the HU forum: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/58...thread-778520/ Even if people have other bumhunting sites as their main action, they often just want to battle; KOTH would be perfect.

Additionally, the fact that the longer you get the empty table means the better chance you have at getting a fish will force games to keep starting. Every time a game starts, someone will instantly sit at the new table, valuing the precious seconds he gets to wait. Any fish who wants to play 2/4 plays either him or nobody.

But a 3/6 grinder on a downswing wants that fish too, and also doesn't mind battling someone who players lower stakes on average. He sits, a game starts. He also sits at another empty table, hoping to quicken the recovery from his downswing by nabbing a fish. The percentage of players who would play him are less than the percentage of players who would play the original 2/4 grinder.

Another 2/4 grinder comes along. He does well, makes a solid BB/100 and holds his own at the 2/4 tables. He nabs the occasional fish for a sweet winrate boost, beats up on the 1/2 guys taking shots, and occasionally battles his fellow 2/4 regs. He knows he's capable of beating these games, and his bankroll is pushing the point where he can start taking shots at 3/6. He recognizes the 3/6 grinder waiting and realizes that if he's ever to play KOTH 3/6, he will have to play guys like this regularly. Does he really want to drop down to 1/2 today, in order to avoid the 3/6 reg taking the 2/4 table? His other option is to wait around until the guy gets a game, but that might take 10 minutes. He has big aspirations and hopes one day this 3/6 reg will be the kind of guy he'd jump at the chance to 4-table. He sits, and the battle ensues.

With a KOTH structure, you need to think of what people are forced to do. People who are saying "well nobody is gonna battle, it's ******ed" don't understand how much value there is in having the only open seat. Imagine if you were on Stars right now and the first fish to sit at ANY 5/10 heads up table was magically funneled to your table. I'd pay a decent amount of money per hour just to have that ability. And since there's so much value in it, games will inevitably start like wildfire to feed this desire to nab the fish. Obviously at higher stakes it's not going to be as common, but games will start more often than they do now.

As a complete aside from this, and something I've mentioned in the past- this structure allows for talented players to have a smooth rise in the limits. If someone is truly the next durrrr, he will always get action. I want to see new stars rise to the top; no more "walls" from 25/50 to 500/1k like there was in 2008.

galfond knows his stuff

If a bad player wants to sit somewhere with an open HU table and wants to play only players much worse then him? Whats wrong with that?

As long as people can choose what games to play, where to sit and when to quit or change seats or what waitlists to get on its all good. Thats how it should be imo.

There wont be tables running that wouldnt not be running now under any system. KOTH for HU is bad. Your only choice is to play heads up vs the best of the best. Hows that going to benefit the poker economy or protect bad players? Only very few will benefit.

Right now people can choose what games to play, where to sit and when to quit or change seats or what waitlists to get on, yet it is clearly not "all good". Check out any HU lobby on any site.

stop tracking sites. i dont mind a personal database utility type program but its getting out of hand to a degree. its almost like a sunglasses and hat type deal in live poker. ye u can wear it, and ye u may make a few more bucks because of it, but without it, u can do just fine.

granted databases/huds are more of an advantage, its really the tracking SITES (PTR NAMELY) that are the root of the problem with such programs. HSDB is fine, because they are high stakes players and there is a certain sense of excitement generated by looking at estimates of how well your favorite player is doing. But seeing some low stakes guy or the infamous guy at midstakes who's down several million, is not worth ruining the games. how many times have u seen someone "out" your ptr at the table. It doenst encourage guys who dont win to keep playing in that kind of "public" atmosphere. Look, if all sites can ban together and close PTR and clones, the market is better off.

there can really be no argument for the continued use of public databases. Winners and losers will agree, that having their "stats" out there, tracked 24hr/7days, only hurts the game.

imo, this is what i would like to see done, ame changes for every player, at least once for sites who dont implement this and the closing of ptr. that way everyone can start fresh and it seems fair.

Btw if you move to a system that promotes tougher competion everyone has to get better or quit. So we have players quitting because they can compete and we have players getting tougher and therefore harder games.

And btw fish arent stupid people. They are either degens who dont care. Or they are playing for the fun of it. They will realize anyway that theyre loosing.

Stop 3rd party tracking sites from publizing results of everybody, I think everyone agrees with that and I wonder why its not been done.

Ok well what concern to the HU lobby of anyone who doesnt play HU?

Of the people that are Hu regulars I assume 50%+ are not happy with a KOTH system. Then if the argument that recreational players get disencouraged from playing heads up seeing a lobby with lots of people sitting alone. Then well, alright let them play another game... and those who wanna play at least let them decide wether they wanna play only the best HU players on the PLANET or maybe just an averge bumhunter....

I really dont get the problem.Unless youre on the best HU pros and feel entitled to a bigger share of fish for some reason the HU lobbies as they are look ****ty but arent really bad for anyone.

U gotta do some more thinking then just " gee that lobby looks awfull, lets make some changes! "

The problem is that HU games rarely start, and I'm asserting that KOTH would make more games start. Nobody is going to make a poker site with any goal other than that.

I moved to San Francisco to start a KOTH-specific poker site; I'm betting the house on my assumptions here. Read earlier posts in this thread, and the KOTH petition from a few years back: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...format-692236/

I mean the whole sentiment I get here is like that poker is supposed to be only be played by the top players and the fish and anyone in between isnt welcome.

I think youre wrong.

Hu became popular because people achieved much higher winrates. If that is taken away players will move to other games.

Youre not going to achieve anything with a KOTH Hu system im afraid. I wish you wouldnt bet youre house on it or at least make enough back to buy a new one after people stop playing.

I haven't read the whole thread....


If you want a KOTH system and you're not making over 300k a year from poker - be careful what you wish for.

If you are a low to midstakes reg advocating KOTH because you "can't get action" you're lying to yourself. You can get action now, just not from anyone you want to play. You want to play "weaker" regs who don't want to play you, but you're not willing to play the stronger regs.

1) KOTH would hurt Sites

Recreational players will play less often:
Allowing people to game select increases a recreational players win(loss) rate because the "bumhunters" are much weaker than the regs at any given limit (they will be losing slower). The regs at any limit will have a double digit win rate against recreational players while the bumhunters is going to have a significantly lower win rate (less skilled, "scared" money, etc.). Preventing the recreational player from getting slaughtered means they're going to have more winning days, redeposit, play more often, etc. which is great for the game.

Substantial decrease in player account balances:
For example, a player who is currently a 3/6 "reg" probably bumhunts up to 10/20, which requires them to keep a healthy account balance (~10-20k). If a KOH system were implemented the 3/6 reg would at the very least become 2/4 reg and most likely a 1/2 or .5/1 reg (people greatly underestimate how far they would fall when all of the 5/10 and 10/20 regs get pushed down). That would cause the reg to cashout almost all of his roll (the reg would only need 2-4k to play the lower stakes). Even the sites that don't invest any player funds at least have them in a high interest savings account. ING offers anyone 1.1% on their savings account if you maintain a 50k balance with no penalty for withdrawing your money (im sure sites with millions in player funds could get a better rate). So, if players cash out 50-70% of their roll it's going to immediately hurt a sites bottom line.

As a side note, since black Friday everyone is freaking out and demanding sites keep 100% of player funds readily accessible - this is an overreaction (I have six figures tied up with FTP & UB). U.S. banks only keep 10% of deposits on hand and its working fine (basically). It's almost certainly -ev for sites not to take some % of player deposits to use for advertising and investments.


2) The state of HU games is not a problem

"Lobbies are Cluttered"
It's very unlikely that lobbies full of people sitting alone intimidates a recreational player. Confusing? maybe, but not intimidating. Even if it is intimidating, it would be much more intimidating to only have 5 tables at any given limit and have the same 2-5 guys sitting at the tables every day. This would be especially intimidating considering that every time the recreational player sat down to play they would get slaughtered (probably -10BB/100).

"KOTH would create a lot more action"
Unlikely. Party currently has KOTH for 5/10+ and very few games run relative to Party's size. Currently there are 0 games running. Players will figure out the pecking order very quickly.

"Regs deserve more fish action"
Why? Regs don't deserve to have AA hold up more often. You don't deserve anything.

3) Quitting a game as soon as the fish sits out
This is obnoxious and almost certainly -ev for the weaker regs. Playing a few more rounds with other regs is costing you basically nothing and is a good chance to improve your game. If a small % of recreational players (especially at high stakes) don't come back because they realize they are the reason the game runs it will cost you much more than playing a few more rounds against superior opponents. If there were some way to keep people from "buttoning" one another people would stick around longer.

thanks _AO_ , great post and exactly what ive been thinking

i got halfway through this thread and didnt see this mentioned.

is there something wrong with the idea of paying for your seat in time intervals(ex:$X for Yminutes, $X Yminutes w/e) INSTEAD of rake? what am i missing, i haven't put too much thought into it tbh, just seems like it would eliminate sitting out.

and also, BarryG once said he made most his money off worse players(ie FISH) rather than skilled. LDO

dont get me wrong, obviously a lot of the things going on with online poker are not beneficial to the game in a greater good sense, but if you arent targeting weaker players then you are doing it wrong.

How do you imagine would this solve sitting out?

If the cost for a table is 1BB/time you will simply see your BR drained if you sit out at a table for a long period of time. Why do you even need to be told this?

@Stake Monster

Reading your threads now. Please check out:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19.../#post31019042

I like you

This is your whole plan/argument?

It will not be a solution for many reasons.

Do you really need to be told why?