Convert ante zoom to regular deep ante tables. The deep ante zoom tables will never run, but there's a few regs, myself included who like to play hu and short handed. This won't affect the regular zoom tables IMO.

Also fix the god damn sit in for 3 handed button for 25/50 and 50/100 already. It's been two months and my software still doesn't have it there.

Also while you are at it change the Hu lobby to Hu zoom

Agreed

This is right. I assume it wouldnt practically work to have a deal me in with 5+ button? But it def seems flawed atm. Krmont is superb source on this, he can probarly even filter out some results about how often its 4handed vs 5/6 handed in 2550 zoom?

One idea i mentioned in the IoM meeting last year was a large rake discount (extra vpp multiplier?) for small zoom pools. A small pool will never be a very profitable one (for long) and at least it gives incentives to the players that are willing to start it. Maybe this is something that can work?

Agreed, I almost suggested a "only deal me in 6 handed box". But as you said it seems overly complicated to implement, especially when the net result is going to be an extremely high % of people clicking it. They are better off just doing the simple and logical thing...run a 6 handed game 6 handed.

Agreed again, the solution to this mess is to actually take the Zoom algorithm back to the original needing 6 players to start and tweak it to include...

1. Run with less than 6 players, starting up with boxes (located in the filter popup) for 2, 3, 4 and 5 handed play. But once there are 6 players in the pool it runs 6 handed.

2. Leave you at current table on a fold if the next table isn't ready yet so that you can watch current hand/table. With old 6 handed algorithm, no one was complaining about the speed of this fast fold game (LOL to some of you now saying they need more speed and preferring 4 handed), players just wanted to stay and watch the current hand/table on a fold instead of ending up on blank screen waiting.

A flaw I see with this idea is how many players get this rake discount. For example, if when there is only 5 players or less in pool those 5 players get a discount. What is going to happen is 5 players playing $25/50 are going to quit and leave when a 6th person sits down. Thereby crashing the $25/50 game back to not running. Those 5 players are going to then go sit 5 handed in the $50/100 game hoping the 6th playing can't afford that stake. If a 6th player sits, those 5 players are going to leave the $50/100 game. Thereby crashing the $50/100 game back to not running. Those 5 players are then going to sit the $50/100 deep ante game hoping the 6th player that wanted to play can't afford the $50/100 deep ante or not have the skill set.

Poker sites that have given rake discounts or multiplier bonuses for being the first few at a table often create players that only play with a few players at table. For example, first two players get a higher multiplier, creating a whole lot of 2 player tables that close the second a 3rd person sits. The first 2 players leave to go sit 1st or 2nd at another table if new empty tables keep spanning

So in your idea, I'm not sure how big the pool needs to be to stop getting the rake discount. If it creates an incentive to play less players then it will defeats the purpose of trying to increase Zoom pool sizes as well as keep games going.

3 possible solutions:

1) Make every hand 5handed+ unless its specific 2, 3 or 4 people (only) playing with boxes ticket for play 3handed for example.

2) Same as 1 as soon as the pool hit 12 or another number

3) Make an algorithm that will wait for a new hand (not deal it 4handed) if the total amount of 4handed hands the last 60 minutes is to high (even it out).

Does #2 stand for 6 handed? If not, is there a reason you didn't include 6 handed? Clearly with 2 to 5 total players it needs to be up a running. Seems like everyone agrees 2 handed option box needs to be added. But once at 6 players, all current fancy algorithms seem to be part of the problem not the solution.

With a small pool, I think players need to understand that Zoom will run at a hybrid speed somewhere between the 75 hands per hour regular tables speed and the 175 hands per hour large pool Zoom speed. But that isn't a reason to run it any other way than 6 handed, remember people have multiple entries also increasing the speed creation of the next table.

I stand by my earlier statement that I prefer 4-handed to 6-handed and waiting, but if that means the games won't run I can compromise on my personal preference.

Stars no doubt has some hard data on this already, and 10/20 becoming the new 25/50 is clearly happening.

moonship: 2) 5handed+. Same as 1) in my example.

I'm usually for compromises and think 5handed+ will do fine until the player pool is big enough to support 6handed+ only. There is differences between a small, medium and large pool, where the goal for 6m Zoom cant be to get only most hands in but also to average more then 4 players for each dealt hand? A compromise between most hands dealt (speed) and dealing 6handed (on 6m tables) could be to make a 5h+ rule.

Sign me up for compromise too. 5 handed is a huge improvement over 4 handed.

But I would like to point out, I also think transparency is a huge issue. I've been fighting for it running 6 handed at 6 players because then anyone that enters the pool with 6 or more players knows exactly what they are getting...a 6 handed game. But it isn't transparent at all right now if the next hand is going to be 4 players, 5 players or even 6 players. That lack of transparency is keep people on the sidelines. So here we are back to stuff like a box "never deal me in 4 players or less". LOL. But 5 handed is a legit compromise.

Also since we are talking about the almost death of $25/50+, what about "individual" Zoom tables. What if you took regular tables like the current regular tables and Zoomed people's seat position each hand. You sit down or join wait list just like a regular table. You play against those other 2-5 players just like a regular table. It just Zooms seat position every hand. In some way shape or form you guys are saying, "oh now small Zoom pools don't work well." Okay stop playing small Zoom pools and play Zoom-regular tables. Ta da 6 people at a table when full.

My sample is not huge yet as its only been 2 months and the game does not run anymore, but I have played 57% 4 handed, 24% 5 handed, and 19% 6 handed.

This sample is also very skewed because I am generally one of the people starting the pool, but from experience I can definitely say even with 12+ entries, you are being seated 4 and 5 handed a lot.

Stars must be fistpumping 24/7 over how the games developed recently.

with that being said I kinda like the side effects of zoom ie less bumhunting etc. it's still a bad development overall as Stars keeps more and more money to themselves.

Constructive discussion in this thread drummed up some high Zoom action today. Hopefully Pokerstars doesn't make the foolish mistake of thinking they don't have things that need fixing.

It's only a matter of time before they have everyone playing 1k cap

I think 10/20 exemplifies this perfectly now.. Zoom runs very frequently/normally while normal deep/ante tables run sometimes. Seems like it maximizes the action and keeps everyone happy, seems like the right fit for 25/50 and 50/100 as well.

10/20 is harmed less by a pool split and historically has run both deep and regular with regularity. The ecosystems of both pools are significantly different and saying that because it "works" at 10/20 it will work at 25/50+ is wrong.

There are 7 deep ante tables running now at 10/20 with an average waitlist of 5-6 people. There is no zoom pool running at 10/20 right now. How does no zoom pool and a bunch of people waiting maximize action? (noone on waitlists is open sitting or playing another reg to start tables, even with this large amount of tables going providing incentive for some regs to start games. Not saying it doesn't happen though. )

What advantages does your suggestion have over a "Play heads up" button in zoom pool? 10/20 all zoom with these changes seems like a solid step forward.

It's fair to say the pools are different and thus it's not necessarily true that things will work the same at 25/50.

I disagree though that waitlists are an indication that action is not being maximized because there are seemingly excess players who would otherwise be playing if it were all zoom. I think there are some particular sets of circumstances where deep-ante games are actually more likely to start than the Zoom games, today being one of them. I think you are far more likely to see those reg-battle deep-ante line-ups you saw today at deep-ante than to ever see the same line-up strictly in just the zoom pool. I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression that some of these games start sometimes because certain regs think they have greater and more worthwhile/significant edges over other regs once deep. At 40bb rat-holing tables, it's not worth starting the games for them.

I can certainly be wrong on that though, I'm making a few assumptions there. And I'm all for a "play heads-up" button in the zoom pool. I'm not sure how it relates to my suggestion, I'd have to think about it a bit.

Adding a hu button solves all of your problems while having no adverse effects on the pool that I can think of. Adding another table option entirely atleast has the potential to split pools.

If I'm wrong please correct me, but I saw a new name at 10/20 ante around. I was assuming he was driving the action. If he's just another reg, I've certainly never seen him at 25/50+ before and the pool of regs who will battle at 25/50+ is obviously smaller than at 10/20 (bigger br, tougher player pool with interested ola, bored86, etc). Realistically how often do you think you're going to see the less than 10 regs who are willing to play each other that high playing versus a fish sitting and 6 people playing.

Oh and what about a significant wait list forming do you not think is indicative of action not being maximized? Feel like I'm missing something here if you disagree, but think you're never gonna have a 5 person wait list form and not have another player who is willing to jump into a zoom pool out of those 5 if it was all zoom.

If there is a fishless pool (lets say pool with less than full table is going to be fishless for the most part), whatever rake discount they give you is not going to greatly encourage the handful of non fish who will play each other at 25/50+ from playing with each other. You're talking about a very small ev gain relative to stakes youre playing.

I don't understand the point of this post.

Joeri made a suggestion based on increasing the pool size. I simply pointed out that bonuses based on being the first few people seated don't usually increase the table play beyond those first few people. And it also can encourage someone to break a running table to go start a new table as one of the first few people getting a bonus.

Doorbread, your "fishless pool" phrase brings up some interesting points. The current way that $25/50+ Zoom is run makes it damn near impossible to play it "fishless." Pokerstars destroyed that action with a series of dumb decisions. Downgrading the min. buy-in to 40bb, dumb. Not running it a full 6 handed, dumb. The current $25/50+ Zoom at 40bb and 4 handed is a total wasted of time. That is shown in the results. Counting yesterday and today, I don't think a total of 100 hands have been played. The game is near dead.

Before $25/50+ Zoom-only, $25/50+ ran all the time even "fishless". So therefore it has been Stars dumbass decisions with regards to $25/50+ Zoom-only that have killed the games !!!

What could make it run "fishless"? If it was run a full 6 handed and for 100bb min buy-in, then I can think of 10+ people that would battle each other. Now the 100bb min part is covered by deep ante. But that doesn't cover the fact that for some damn reason almost all the hands are dealt 4 handed. If there was a box for "only play 6-handed" (or they reverted back to original Zoom at 6 players it plays 6 handed), I'd sit in the $25/50 Zoom deep ante pool morning, noon and night. And also, I'm not going to name names, but some of the people that sit the $25/50 Zoom deep ante pool, simultaneously sit the $25/50 Zoom which screws up the Zoom deep ante pool running. They need to be exclusively sitting the $25/50 Zoom deep ante pool.

I mean I just don't think 25/50 regular or deep is going to run regularly without a fish and when it does it's an exception and by no means a rule. That's why I think adding another pool is going to be more bad than good. There's a few things that can be done to improve zoom, but even in your or my idea of a perfect zoom world, games aren't gonna run around the clock. There's not enough fish. The jump from 10/20 to 25/50 is pretty big and it comes with a skill gap. A lot of players are simply going to make more playing lower than they would at 25/50 unless there are spots and spots tend to be more plentiful the lower you go. I think a lot of regs recognize this and that's one of the reasons 25/50 never runs with 5 guys you have tagged the same color, or one shade up or down.

I still think Stars motivation is to kill high stakes and so far, mission accomplished. Something like reducing rake, or doing anything to bloat already winning players winrates just doesn't seem like it will be on Stars agenda at all imo. Their goal is to do the opposite and as a business model, its the right way to go.

Yeah we mostly agree. But we differ on a thing or two.

I think $25/50 Zoom could run without fish if Zoom had the right setup. The right setup is NOT 40bb 4 handed. I think at 100bb 6 handed people would play. Poker players are an arrogant bunch. When the cards are turned over at showdown, I often think, “wow that player has a bad 3bet range or wow that player took that hand to showdown, etc.” There are a lot of players I would love to play against for 200,000+ hands a year and beat them in the long run because of their leaks. But fukc it, there is no way I’m wasting my time at $25/50+ 40bb 4 handed. I’d rather not play and I’d rather $25/50+ not run, than to enable Stars into thinking that their Zoom-only choices so far have been good choices. Stars has made some straight up stupid decisions so far regarding Zoom-only.

You think Stars motivation is to kill off high stakes. I do NOT think Stars motivation is to kill off high stakes. And the proof is in one and only one action. In February, PLO $25/50 went Zoom-only while NLH $25/50 did not. But let me step back a month first. In January, both PLO and NLH saw $50/100 go Zoom-only. The PLO got action while NLH was completely dead. So in February, PLO Zoom expanded to $25/50 while NLH did not expand. BOOM. If Stars wanted to kill off high stakes they would have expanded $25/50 Zoom-only to NLH too. It would have been something like this, “woo hoo we killed NLH $50/100 when we took it Zoom-only let’s expanded it down to $25/50 NLH and kill that too.” But that is not what they did. They expanded the popular PLO but not the unpopular NLH. That one and only one action seems like the logical proof they are NOT trying to kill off high stakes.

High stakes might die off anyway. But in my opinion it is not because Pokerstars is intentionally trying to kill high stakes off. High stakes might die because Pokerstars is too damn stupid to run Zoom correctly.

HS will die cause of Zoom def! A while after that midstakes will get sick and die slowly due to less recs every day cause of Zoom-only-stakes PLO1k upwards. Party made it in the str8 way, they just shut down 2k+ games. Stars alway will say 'we tried everything to make HS as fine as poss, so we made it all zoom, if no1 is there to play it its not our fault'.
MAY ALL OF YOU ZOOM-IS-SOOO-GREAT-GUYS GET A RIDIC DOWNSWING B4 ZOOM HAS KILLED THOSE GAMES FINALLY. Then you have plenty of time to think about how effective Zoom was for the healthiness of onlinepoker and can try 2 get your money back at smallstakes zoom with 10bb/100++ rake and without recs. WP and GL!