well 25/50 is novelty atm, but it will probably work to some extent there because the player pool is small and the good players (and a decent amount of the fish) are aware of the bum hunting and general douchiness and want to do something about it. those problems dont exist to the same extent at lower stakes.

From what I've seen so far, there's a small delay in the hands and they only show hands that go to showdown. At smaller stakes where the pools are bigger seems like they also chose hands that had big pots.

ah i wasnt watching closely enough but yea its like a replayer showing allins only. pretty cool, although when there's only a couple tables running they could just show every hand i feel.

All this says to me is that Stars is acknowledging that their current PLO economic model is unsustainable, and the only way they can keep it content is by bringing in new lambs to the slaughter.

Make the rake fair so recreational players aren't drawing dead from the get go. Then you don't have to solicit new players!

Was playing zoom 25 50 and it's better without the seating issues bum hunters plus was a lot of action, so thumbs up. Would be good if you could see number of entries per player in the lobby like in baby zoom.

For the conspiracy theorists, I noted both barcode and vietrussian in the line up and the pool was as few as 12 and as many as 22 during my spell and amazingly they never were put on the same table.

Had a similar problem recently in Macau when a reg I play and I were in the same hotel, ip address, so could not play the same table.

No model is sustainable without new players/deposits. Even if you completely remove rake from the equation and just run the games from here on out with no new players coming in it won't take long before the best players have all the money and everyone else is broke. New players and deposits are the key ingredient to a sustainable poker ecosystem.

Stars has been on the forefront of marketing poker since day 1 (what a great move signing Moneymaker was). I think it's a bit of a leap to go from promotions looking to bring in new players and widen the appeal of different game types to that being an acknowledgement of an unsustainable environment.

Smart- this also kills HSDB which is awesome

Timing just strikes me as a bit odd, is all.

But really that's not the core of the issue. The main point is I'd rather see them make an effort towards fixing the rake as opposed to boosting their marketing. I'd like to think other rational small stakes players would want the same thing.

This is a comment I would totally expect from you. I agree with you on the expanding part, its not counterproductive for us the players to have as many different games as possible. However, you are their sponsored shortstacking ratholer Pro, so there would be no motive for you criticize them, as you get a 100% rakeback and the rake does not apply to you and would not want to jeopardize that.

If you were able to speak freely, and were unbiased, you could agree on that the very small fraction of the billions in rake we have paid them that they use on marketing, does not really help us,the players, much at all, but only Pokerstars.

They rake to the point that it is impossible to win at certain games and limits.
Bringing more players to those games and stakes is just CPR to keep the rake machine grinding profits - for Pokerstars only. At the highest stakes it is different, but most players play at levels where the rake is unbearable.

what a ******ed post... roy don't ratholing and don't bumhunting. he plays in line ups that lots of players who are well know for being ''fearless'' and ''crazy regs'' don't play.

Why would they make the buyin 50bb?

If I'm a fish and I choose between 40bb and 50bb buyin which do I choose?

http://imgur.com/CEhbO

I think a good way to promote zoom at lower stakes, would be for it to have a slight rake-reduction compared to the normal tables. Would probably get 1/2 zoom running...

Obviously it's not possible to do this openly because it would break a bunch of rules (bringing attention to the rake, acknowledging its a problem), but I think it could be done positively through increased rewards instead (Zoom is always happy hour or something like that).

I love the **** out of zoom, the constant finding of new regular tables bores me to tears :[ It's just not really raked fairly at all given how tough it is comparatively to the stakes its available at.

The rake applies to me just the same as everybody else.

While I may not want to speak negatively about Stars due to my sponsorship with them I am under no obligation to respond positively about them either. In fact it is probably better for both me as well as Stars if I just stayed silent. My posts receive me little more than backlash and abuse and I doubt gain me much favour in the eyes of Stars. It's not like i'm coming here to refute any claims being made or to come out in support of the status quo. I try to make posts that offer different perspectives and look for alternate avenues to better the overall state of our games and to make a positive impact on them any way that I can.

I came here to make a post to promote "omaha week", an event that I am spending hours of time working on to help market the game. Calls for rake reductions can be made til the cows come home but that's no reason to not attempt to improve our situation in other ways. As a Team Online member with PLO as my main focus I feel it is my obligation to promote the game as best I can and that's what I am doing.

I could, but I wouldn't. For starters I have no idea how much they spend on marketing (though I think this is information that is divulged to the player panels?) but I don't see how it wouldn't help us as players much at all. Surely it is of great benefit to us to have new recreational players depositing and playing more PLO?

To be fair, I do rathole. I am frequently joining and leaving tables often when my stack exceeds certain points and the lineups are tough and I have lots of tables running.

I don't know about bumhunting though - I table select, sure, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to call someone who has played 100k+ hands this month a bumhunter. I basically play 12-18 tables and have new ones popping up constantly and when that happens I look for the toughest tables that I am on and leave those. I also keep an eye on the lobby so if I see weak players at any tables I try to get seats on them but I don't use any scripts or programs and I never sit out when the fish sits out - if I want to stop playing I will leave the table, though usually I am happy to play shorthanded vs other regs with a fish sitting out hoping that he will return.

Roy,

Why justify yourself to people who don't care for your response and just want to be argumentative.

Seems a lot of people only come here to berate others and not participate in any meaningful way.

Btw 100k hands does not sound like bum hunting.

Because every day I wake up and say to myself "this.. today.. today will be the day I become the first man on earth to change someone's opinion over the internet".

The games at PS midstakes must be pretty damn awesome, as it's apparently possible to mass-multitable bumhunt them.

I think Stars intention is to eventually eliminate 25/50+ regular tables and make those stakes zoom only. For obvious reasons they would rather the games run at lower stakes than at 25/50+, and this will make so that on one hand they probably will run less and more importantly when they do run Stars will get alot more rake from regs.

But altought I think their intentions are mainly selfish I also (wishfully) think that this could be good to the poker environment, and thus could be good for us long term. However I think it would make alot more sense to start by implementing it at 2/4 or 5/10 where there are decent player pools.

Looks like they've been implemented at 5/10 and 10/20 too now.

Flong you are a low life. Really? Fish sits out i wait because maybe he will sit in , you sit out when he quits. He leaves you steal 4 $ and leave Bravo.

Roy- any idea on why stars hasn't tried a HU Zoom? Party has it for 50nl HU and I know some people who've played it and it works fine. Why not eliminate the HU lobby and replace it with zoom HU?

Also, v excited to try out zoom PLO for 6m! Hopefully it runs at 1k/2k


edit: If stars made Zoom HU, and Zoom 6max for all stakes, and both ran enough, I would never play another hand on other sites lol. One time

I think Roy is right here. Stars anyways will never lower the rake, games are still beatable (except microstakes imo) so why should they, their intention as a company is to maximize the profit. And btw I dont think rake has anything to do with fish dying, they are much faster eaten by sharks than by rake ( majority of them)
So its a step forward to promote PLO as much as poss to get new recs into this game. Its same effect as in livegames, they run a while til the fishes are busto and the winners and cardroom got the cash and game dies due to no new players...

You are wrong. Believing in what many have said in the past, that at PLO stars grabs 1 buy-in every 100 hands, rake is the major contributor to fish death.

Stars will not reduce the rake because it's working for now. People are still playing (both regs and fish) with some making a profit, and they're pocketing several hundred millions per year.
Don't know if this will be case in the future. I really hope so, but many concerns expressed in this forum believe otherwise.

Promise me that this is the worst we can get and I won't talk about rake issues ever.

Just played a bit of Zoom. It's a great thing. What needs to happen tho is that normal tables must go out of lobby forever. That way ratholing and sitting out will be solved. It's the easiest way to get games going. I know I might end up playing vs regs I wouldn't normally play because I keep looking for better spots. However, if there is only one option to play everyone would have to play or quit.

Also this way people won't be able to use any script no more. Everyone will be able to play the weak opponent at least couple hands. I often notice that if I login into pokerstars there are so many good tables going but I won't ever get a seat, no problem with Zoom anymore.

Anyone has an idea how many hands you play 4tabling Zoom per hour? Much easier collecting of the VPP? Could also go for 4 tables of one limit and 4 tables of another one.