Just to make my point...

Would you rather play in a game with players who have never played poker before, but everyone only has 5bb and the rake is 15% uncapped?

Or play 100bb poker with 5% capped rake against decent players who you have a small edge against?

Good god you are stupid. You are talking about some live mambojambo in a thread about future online poker room.

Actually, someone else brought it up, but I'm probably stupid too?

Might be yeah. You play live too then?

About 10-15% of the time, what does that have to do with anything? lol

When is Phil disclosing the next chapter?

We were discussing the merits of 50bb (shortstacked) vs 100bb+ (deepstacked) poker. Must have flown over your head though.

It's mumbojumbo, but if enough people keep screwing it up the morans will win once again, and you'll be fine KossiKikkila.

I think that most of you guys are missing the point about min BI change. Recs "mesaure" their loserate in money, not bb/100. If a person deposits, say, 100$, they tend to sit highest stakes avaliable. If they can sit at nl200, they will do it. If they cant, they will sit nl100. Now, even if their loserate @ 50bb bi is 30bb/100 and @100bb it's 40bb/100, their buyin is still going to last longer at 100nl, because they have more blind there.

Not saying I agree with this line of thinking, since it makes one super strong assumption (that recs tend to sit at highest stakes avaliable to them), but Im pretty sure that's what Phil meant here.

exactly this.

But I wouldn't go as far as saying a fish would deposit 100 bucks and then try playing NL200 with 50bb.
Fish maybe don't like bankroll management but nobody is potentially blowing his whole load with 1 shot.
that guy would probably want to buy in for something around 10 $.
Because he thinks "yeah I got 100 in the bank, so I am only risking a fraction here".

If this guy is on pokerstars, he will look where he can get the most bang for his 10 bucks. And he might chose NL20, buying in for 50bb, because the pots are easily bigger there.

If this guy is on RIO poker, however... well, he will screen the lobby, see the "10 $" game and have a seat there. And this happens to be NL10 with 100bb.

It doesn't matter if he loses his 10$ stack on pokerstars at NL20 or at RIO at NL10.

The only thing this will do is, that the money will tend to accumulate a bit more in the lowest limits NL2 to ~NL10. Before it eventually is taken to higher levels by ascending players.

Itz not morans, you fool, itz spellet morrans.

I don't know if this idea has been put forward before, but I think on both the turn and the river, if the pot is very small (small number of BBs in the middle) that the amount of thinking time should be reduced, maybe cut in half or something.

Yes this could cause some issues for players multi tabling or multi tabling across sites but you often see in a HU or 3 way pot where the pot is still tiny on the turn (and river) and 2 or all 3 players are tanking before their decision.

10 to 15 seconds is enough to make a decision in a tiny pot, it doesn't require 20, 30 or 40 seconds which is often what is available. If players time out now and again in tiny pots on the turn or river it's a small price to pay for speeding the game up.

You won't be tracked for long but it comes at the cost of less customer protection (trackers, teams, bots). It takes just some extra work to select tables. At the cost of a lot of other things also.

Better than no HUD, is to have nicks that won't be too permanent, like in our national site, that prevents bum hunting if the bum/pro is aware of it and changes his nick often enough. That does not come with the cost of no HUD. No need for no HUD.

Galfond is betting on a Unibet type of dream. The industry vision has long been on kindergarten type of tracks. That isn't fully informed and thought out. It comes with a too big a cost in many ways and so isn't the overall best move.

The extra work that comes w/o a HUD, with or w/o a notes function, is insane, and we need to look around to find softwares that will help us with these. What we want is actually more fun and less work, and the HUD helps us with that.

What is it that made the games tougher? Heavy multi-tabling (never heard of too heavy fishing?), micro to low limit winners unwilling to move up and the high rake there (should be 3% and not the Mediterranean 6% that the Portos wrongly joined recently when they could have joined .com with a 4% rake, and they just declined euthanasia that together with cannabis is legal even in California).

Think harder. It's fairly obvious.

GIVE US POOPYTHROWING PLSSSSSSSSS

I hope Phil knows what you are referring to ... but yesssss

^^ Voice chat too, obv

Report button under player nicknames please

S N I T C H !!

Sent from my Redmi Note 3 using 2+2 Forums

Animated avatars dying in grease fires?

Reported

I like this. You could even make it a 15 second timer for all decisions except when the pot is over X (50?) BB

I like that idea too , it should be implemented on all sites tho

LOL! Love this.

wow, what an orwellian twist of reality