6max...

Keep tables to a "limited number" I'm not sure exactly how many to start of with, but by doing so players will have to wait to sit, and once you sit out for a period of time or "repeatedly" you get booted off that table....obviously with the option to go back on the waiting list....but the end of a likely long list due to limited tables.

So say 2 or 3 tables are going with a decent waiting list (depending how busy obv), once a waiting list reaches a certain number of players, a new table will open with preference given to the players sitting at the tables which are going already, with the pop up...click yes to join new table.

It will be pretty much be like live cash games where you have to wait to get on the table, but once enough players register on the waiting list a new table opens giving preference to the players starting the games and playing already in that order.

This will eliminate bumbunters sitting out because they will be booted of the table and have to go back and wait all over again missing the opportunity to play against the Fishes, or the other option for them is to play more vs regs until the fish joins.

So regs will play more vs each other especially knowing a Fish is on the waiting list and soon to join their table.

This will make them have to play and not sit out because if they sit out as i said they will get booted and have to go back on the "longer" waiting list and wait all over again....which could mean missing out playing against the Fish.

Also by limiting the tables, players will know that they need to get in early and join tables to get a seat, fish will know this also and be keen to get in and grab a seat early.

And Fish will play more, and deeper also, instead of jumping tables once they double up, as they know if they sit out they will also need to go back on the waiting list and wait all over again....and Fish as we know don't like sitting and waiting but playing instead.

For guys wanting to play HU with antes just introduce some HU tables with antes.

Well, that site already somewhat known, has a chatter thread in the Zoo and is even listed by Pokerscout (at the very bottom - the most played game there is open-face Chinese), but its founder is a programmer, not a marketing specialist, and Bitcoin is an unpopular currency for poker, especially outside of the US, so it likely won't get as much traffic as Unibet's new independent platform to be launched in Q1 2014 that will do similar things, and even as much as the independent reincarnation of Hero Poker that will run on Microgaming software but separately from its main network and focus on recs too.

Sorry for the derail, but does that actually mean there will be Stud, Badugi etc Zoom-tables?

No, this was meant as a clarification as to whether we would be spreading anything other than 100BB, non-ante, non-CAP games.

The offerings I listed below that statement are the only new High Stakes Zoom Pools I'll be deploying on the first.

I realize question one is already answered, but are you able to answer any other of these questions Nick?

Questions for Nick

1) Since its Zoom only will there be a zoom ante Pool on 50 100?
2) Will anti rathole measures be implemented before 1 January?
If not, when?
3) Will these tables get same timebank as the normal tables?
4) 25 50 PLO ZOOM was a great success btw. Seems like no/few recreationals like it... How many % of 25 50 volume was Zoom after it was available Nick?

Zoom 25 50 was running quite a lot the first couple days. But then the regulars, who played it, realized there is so little edge vs each other.

The real question is, how will ZOOM games run if there are no other games to play in. Will the fish play zoom if there are no other games available? It is risky as they might switch to FTP, which would be good in order to get both sites more balanced, or they stop playing. In this case Stars will bring back the normal tables for sure.

As a few guys mentioned above, there are better solutions compared to ZOOM. Looks like ZOOM is much easier to get going for Stars and is probably cheaper overall to handle.

Ghosting/MA/Account sharing/HH sharing/Teamplaying will still be a huge problem.

50/100 not running benefits pokerstars

I remember people said Stars had the best games going when the highest stakes they had was 25/50 NL, long ago. Along with no HU tables.

I'm pretty sure the 25/50 games back in 2005 were pretty good, yeah..

FYP

It is still early in the trial. But blah if this ends up pushing the PLO action to FTP and FTP shallow tables at that. One guy didn't have top up on and eventually was sitting on a 12BB stack and another guy at one point had a 9BB stack. If this trial expands to lower stakes, LOL, FTP shallow tables, FTP VIP rewards compared to PS VIP rewards, blah, etc.

^
Full Tilt Poker Game #33659483395: Table Timber Rose (6 max, shallow) - PL Omaha Hi - $25/$50 - 20:24:10 ET - 2013/12/20
Seat 1: sillen30 ($4,596.50)
Seat 2: MagicOcean ($5,592.90)
Seat 3: POKERBLUFFS ($950)
Seat 4: DIN_FRU ($5,653.75)
Seat 5: wookzzone ($1,676)
Seat 6: Ingenious89 ($277.50)



I actually enjoy playing the 20 - 40bb shallow tables, but when stacks get this low and players aren't topping up to their initial buyin it does get pretty frustrating.

First impression of the zoom changes:

- The reduction(elimination?) of buttoning / seat camping / scripting is a huge relief. I sit in the pool and if games start I get to play a fair amount of hands.

edit: found the fold and watch option. my complaint was about not seeing the hand end. so thumbs up so far.

+1 except I'd like to have options to be able to play HU/3handed. Games only seem to start with 4 or more players. Why can't it start with 2 players?

Not that this benefits me, but it ought to be an option.

I also think that it should really leave you sat at the table if you don't have a new hand to play yet.

Other than that, seems like it's pretty cool so far. Hopefully it runs often enough for players unfamiliar with the format to take a chance and join in (I can't imagine many fish not enjoying this format, although I think the min-buyin of 50bb is a bit deterrent/unnecessary when there is a deep ante game ready to play down the road).

good point

the action today was a lot of fun. Nearly 1500 hands of 50/100 for me. Dont think I have ever done that. Still would like to see the couple adjustments myself and deldar mentioned yesterday though

There should be a checkbox to deal you in three-handed when there are fewer than four players in the pool.

We intend to make this change once we can get it developed.

ok cool, thanks Nick. Idk how I have not seen that checkbox.

how have things been if you wanted to play more than 1 table at a time?

Hey, I just opened up both ante and non ante zoom and dont see this checkbox. Heres what I see




edit: and theres < 4 players in the player pool in both

Looking forward to seeing zoom at 25/50 if it's kept the way it is, so much better than what we have right now

Well, with what was going on last several days at 25/50 (when the certain player was online) I can hardly see how one can still be really opposed to ZOOM.

However, something needs to be done with ratholing. It's not OK when you can load 4 tables with 40 bb's each, turn auto-top-up off and then once you double up on one of the tables immediately change it for a new 40 bb's one. There should be at least a 30-minutes timer (I think the timer should be lower than on regular tables, like everyting at ZOOM).

^ There is a deep ante game literally ONE click away from the other game. It has run once since it's inception. Why fix what's not broken? Your proposed changes will only reduce traffic, which is a disaster for a game with an already small player pool.