I'm going to hold discussions about PLO specifically in regards to the meeting with Stars later this month in the SSPLO forum, so if anyone has an opinion or idea, please join us!

Krmont22 are you elwallo666?

no. he is krmont22

lol who is that?

i read it: swallow666

lol

how is ghost crab winning so much/winning at all?? wtf am i missing here

i expected to see him down like 100k

wtf are you talking about?

you?

who agrees that hotcocaest should limit himself to start table on max 2 tables

rather than sitting alone in like 10 tables

i dont see any problem with that as long as he isnt bumhunting them and gives action to anyone that sits. that was my standard way of getting a session started when all the tables were full and the stupid waitlists were 17 people deep on every table

he doesnt give action to anyone that sits but i never had a problem with him starting tables when he would sit at 2-3 tables and only play fish, it does kinda get annoying when him and efp are at like 10 tables alone but idk if it really makes that big of a difference

yeah I agree, its kinda annoying when u start up a session yourself. He refuses to play, and it also take up some of "my tables"... Less chance for me to get the table i personally start up and running. And therefore I need to check the lobby every 30seconds to se if someone sits with him so I can sit in aswell so we get tables running.

I have always followed the rule that I sit on a 6m of each stake. I continue waiting until somene sits who I will not play. If I won't play them, I leave. For the most part though, I play everyone atleast for a while. I've given a ton of HU action while 20 tabling to regs.

The panel has been discussing at great length the idea of a universal seating system, which could really end the "bumhunting" problem. It will definitely be brought up at the meeting. However, our main priority is still a rake restructuring (reduction).

cliffs on what is universal seating system and its pros and cons?

Basically, there would be one giant waitist list per stake. Once some amount (3,4,5,6?) players are on the list the are seated at a table. If you decide not to play, there should be some sort of penalty.

I am not sure about must move at this point since I dont know if forcing people to leave a good game is healthy. I imagine rush style waitlist without changing tables every hand.

I had an idea for a penalty. 6 players are seated randomly, and button is assigned randomly. Any player can choose to sit out and not play in the lineup , however the penalty for this should be that this player must pay the BB first on the next table he is assigned to. The client would keep a memory of this for the next time the player joins a waitlist

regarding hu bumhunters...

what about in a certain limit and time frame (eg week),
you only can sit and wait at a table same amount of hours you have played before.

eg this week,you have played 4 hours at 5/10 so far...you are eligible to sit and wait 4 hours at 5/10.
you havent played at all,you can`t open a table.

regarding ringgame...
sitting out is for taking a small break...there will be a"normal distribution" of
"time played"/"sit out time".fairly easy to determine by stars.
if a player sits out too much in relation to his playing time...he first get a warning....if he goes on,he`ll be politely asked to do this elsewhere

I like the sentiments of those ideas, but I feel implementation would be very difficult. I'm still looking for a really elegant and easy solution.

i don't bumhunt, apart from table selection. But honestly what's the big deal about it? isn't poker about getting oneself in the most +EV situation? and bumhunting IS exactly that. Furthermore, it cannot be a perpetual problem. Why? OK let's see. Assuming theres only one fish and everyone bumhunts him. No game would start if he's offline or is already seated. After some time, games WOULD nevertheless start because regs would still wanna play because they have bills to pay because they want rakeback because they want SNE because they've watched enough porn because they are bored etc, etc. Right? So there is, in fact, a systemic limiting factor to all this bumhunting nonsense.

and furthermore, everyone is entitled to open tables and wait mindlessly for fish 24/7 like what those bumhunters do. it's not like bumhunteres are doing something which the rest of us are excluded from doing. we are just too lazy to do that, so we resent/hate those bumhunters who take our business when we're offline. waiting mindlessly for fish is not my cup of tea either, but if bumhunters are willing to do that and sacrifice the one true joy of professional online pokering (freedom), then are our complaints fair or even legitimate?

They have every right to do it, but the process is killing the games. Also, Stars has taken some measure against the particularly disruptive or "disrespectful" actions of sitting out 5 people at a table waiting for a recreational player to sit and/or reload in addition to limiting the number of empty tables one can sit.

krmont- can you suggest to them random seat assignment when you select a table. With the current bumhunters problem they are even getting the advantage of choosing the best seat, ahead of those that actually started the table. Its also so tilting when starting a table that some guy joins and takes position on you, or a position most favourable to his strategy.

+1

Assuming that they try to recreate real life casino experiences with their software, people should be able to choose their seat on active games.

However, I don't think the current lobby system reflects real casino experience in anyway, so I do agree that something like that should be done. Or, of course, a new style of seating people at tables that would avoid that issue entirely.

random seat assignment is ideally a good improvement, but the players who get a "bad seat" should be punished in someway if they choose to not play. If they only play when they get good seats the improvement isnt that great, but obv still better than what it is now