Got a good suggestion from joeri to merge all recent Zoom conversation in one place and this is it now. (don't mind this post date, i edited an old post of mine to make me the thread starter, otherwise that would have not been the case). so let's continue the conversation here.

here's an old ftp thread about rush plo for "zoom" talk back in the day.

Vroom-regs strategy and banter thread

2.5/5 zoom is fnin awsome, value is gr8.

We should do a event of getting 5/10 zoom going, think its gona be even better!

i think zoom is stupid game and i hope never runs. if 5/10 zoom run, we won't have tables running at 5/10 and 10/20 normal tables because plo field is small.

yea, tried the zoom500 for a few hrs and I agree with Urubu

+1. The least zoom possible, please.

Also, nice to see you again, urubu. For a minute, I thought we lost you forever.

zoom is like superaids bleh

The last 4 posts have been anti-zoom posts but without much detail into the dislikes. For the sake of debate, I'll play devil's advocate. And if zoom isn't going anywhere (and probably increases in size) then maybe it can at least be improved upon.

In the last few posts the only direct dislike is urubu's comment that zoom cannibalizes players from the small player pool normal tables. But even there, the market cannibalization of an old product when a new product is introduced is almost inevitable. You guys are free market guys right? The other dislikes I often see about zoom is that there isn't any table or seat selection. But oddly enough it is often the 10+ multi-tabler who tries to make this wink-wink-nod-nod argument.

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with zoom. But it is growing in size. Instead of just making a blanket, "I dislike it" statement, I say why I dislike it. For instance, I dislike rat hole angle shooting medium stack poker. Zoom is a rat holers dream come true. It seems that unless PS implements a serious medium stack rat hole fix, that higher stakes (PLO500+) should be deep stack ante tables. Furthermore, to combat the naturally tight nature of zoom maybe the antes need to be bigger. Make the antes the same size as the small blind and you'll see the players/flop increase. And the players who don't widen their game will be punished for being nitty. It isn't against the laws of nature to think that PS would simultaneously offer or switch the higher stakes zoom to deep ante as a protection against medium stack rat holing.

Since I was willing to put my neck on the chopping block playing devil's advocate, do any of you who said you dislike zoom want to expand on your reasoning or better yet suggest some zoom improvements?

On a somewhat unrelated note, happy 3 year 3 month birthday to 100-250bb ante tables. Even this game format was new at some point.

As a mostly hu player when I do chose to play 6m its nearly never on stars. The lobby is just too competitive to be profitable for a casual 6m player. I don't have the lobby skills, and don't know the soft spots in the player pool well enough to make playing 6m on stars a good idea.

If they had rush though I would def play a lot more volume at 6m though. With the ability to get into the game immediately and leave as I please makes it a great option and a more level playing field for someone who doesn't have the soft skills that all the regs have.

I also like a lot of ladybuins ideas to prevent ratholers and to loosen up what would probably be a tighter game.

It would be cool to see some large samples of winrate vs rake at 1/2 regular games and 1/2 zoom for the player pool.

Very good point there.

Given the games are so tough on stars especially, I have to table select so much too there compared to FTP for example. Given everyone else table selects very well too I have to basically bumhunt, which I do. Which everyone does. If you just make all the 6max games Zoom or Rush, nobody has a choice to decide which tables he plays with which players, so everyone gets to play everyone and I guess the weakest regs will quit given there is no money for them to be made, but at least the games will be more playable.

The only problem I see there is that fish won't like zoom much. There is simply too much action. Last time I played 4 tables zoom I had headache and was burned out after 20 mins. Just so much clicking and my mouse arm doesn't like that

I actually think recs like zoom. How do recs don't like action lol..
Also they don't have to join waiting lists or start new tables, instead they can jump right into the action and they don't feel hunted.
I like zoom as it is now. Yes the play is nittier but the amount of fish and weaktight regs more then make up for it imo.

i hate zoom lol, being as results oriented as me it hurts not to see the board runout. i like to kick myself after the hand is over when i folded my GS which i knew was coming!

CTRL + fold button lets you see

I like zoom cos I can't be arsed with all the table politics, waiting lists, seat selection, bumhunting, tables breaking and so on. Also it's there when I have a spare half an hour or so and can just jump in and play a few hands. And I like to take frequent breaks during my sessions too and can do it easily with zoom , otherwise I just get booted off normal tables if I'm away for more than 5 mins.

Maybe it's not poker in its purest form but it definitely has a place.

fwiw i think zoom is prob the place where ratholing can most be justified - i think its quite reasonable to allow people to reduce their stack size when they have no idea of what the table conditions will be for the rest of their session (unlike in regular 6max, obv)

i like the antes idea, the disadvantage of unfamiliarity to the recreational player, which may further deter them from playing for any length of time, is prob balanced out by the fact that a lot of them like action and big antes would certainly increase action.

i think zoom is great when youre waiting for tbls to load at the start of a session or if you need a vpp boost, and kinda dull at most other times. i dont really think it cannibalises the player pool though bc most of the regs who play regularly are nitty massmultitablers who will also be playing at least some amount of regular tbls (and arent that big a loss if they arent since their slow nitty style often annoys rec plyrs). also, a lot of the pros who play midstakes and above, after the novelty wears off, dont play zoom anyway for all the reasons already listed, plus vanity ("im better when i can make sick gameflow reads etc"), so its really not a massive threat to the status quo.

Zoom is ****ty option in my opinion, no game or seat selection and get the fish to play much tighter cause they get a new hand all the time (this is bad for us right?)..

Good news is that zoom is not running at mid-highstakes and probarly will not to it in the future either..

jesus, why want change the system? plo400-plo1k is very healthy, lots of tables running, lots of people with very good winrate, good rakeback.

the problem is at micro stakes, plo50, and at highstakes, plo10k+. at micro huge rake, not many people winning. at highstakes, big ratholing, huge bumhunters, not many tables running... at plo200-plo2k, lots of tables running, everything is good.

games are great in 2012/2013. WHY YOU ASKING FOR A CHANGE?

I'm not sure how literal to take this question.

Change is inevitable. I'm not sure how long you've been at this, but if you go back beyond 10 years ago almost everyone online was playing limit poker. And 10 years from now online poker will probably look different from today. The one nice thing is the mostly likely change in the near future will be PLO taking over the popularity spot from NLH. The best thing to do is at least try to make the changes positive.

For example, I hate NLH CAP mostly because it is a rake trap below a certain level and most of the player base is playing CAP in the rake trap. But the game is popular and seems to have about half the NLH market share. I doubt CAP is being removed, so the best thing would be to fix the rake trap part.

I'm indifferent to Zoom. But it is popular and most likely not going down in popularity. The best course of action would be to at least have the game played in a manner that isn't a rake issue. Tight poker is a rake issue. So putting antes on Zoom to loosen it up seems reasonable. So is avoiding the rat hole issue at the higher stakes.

I'll repeat that I'm not sure how literal to take your question. But I do find something interesting. Poker players are about as free wheeling as they come...free market all the way. Mostly having a laissez faire lifestyle to the point of not being happy with someone/government trying to interfere with their right to free choice. But you seem to be trying to interfere or at least question people choosing Zoom PLO500 over regular PLO500. Interesting or should I say duplicitous.

Oh yes, good idea, fix the ratholing. Then like the ante games, it will only ever run when a giant whale decides to sit.

nice post by ladybruin,

i used to be a grinder that turned to 9-5 rec player,
and i like Zoom.
The freedom and the convenience it allows makes it very attractive.
Also, playing on a laptop that limits my ability to multi-table makes Zoom more attractive.

Implementation of antes(smaller than 'normal' antes), better rat-hole policy, *a new chat system for Zoom*
will make it more enjoyable for grinders and recs.

However for MS Zoom, i do agree that it will dry up the normal tables.
then again, it will never run, like joeri said, unless a/few big whale sits in,
so may not effect MS pool too much.

Increasing the minimum buy in would be better than fighting the ratholing problem imo.

Honestly I fail to see how someone who is not a HUGE HUGE bumhunter (and I am a bumhunter myself) can prefer usual tables over ZOOM. You get like 4x more hands/hour! You can start/quit session at any time! You don't have to watch lobby non-stop in the search of good games!

Just fix the ratholing issue (I don't understand why the rules are different for usual tables and ZOOM) or increase minimum buy-in to 100 BBs and it will be just perfect. A single fish will bring not 5 regulars to the game but much much more, depending on the stakes.

I think the way to fix the Zoom ratholing problem is to not ask Pokerstars to do a heavy lift.

What I would like to see is Zoom deep ante tables added to the lobby for PLO500 and above. Deep ante already exist in the regular lobby so it isn't a heavy lift for PS to add it to the Zoom lobby. Deep ante and regular co-exist in the normal lobby and can co-exist in the Zoom lobby. And Zoom PLO500 and above seldom now gets played, so again it isn't a heavy lift for PS. Then just start up/populate the Zoom deep ante instead of the Zoom regular and there will be no rat hole problem and the ante part addresses the tightness issue as well. If it becomes popular then it would probably trickle down to people asking for Zoom deep ante PLO200 and below. But the easiest lift for Pokerstars would be if it started with a lot of people emailed them asking for Zoom deep ante at PLO500 and above.

Or worse.

Makes no sense to split a very small player pool. 1/2 would probably even die when there were 2 possibilities, it is sometimes runnung as low as 30 players.

I'm not sure if you meant 1/2 or 10/20? As I write this at 1/2 PLO there are 17 regular tables and 87 people in the Zoom pool (which was over 100 people earlier in day). So 1/2 is going strong no matter the format. As for 10/20, that isn't going to run in Zoom format for at least another year or two. But it would be nice to have an anti-rat hole, looser Zoom format (deep ante) already in the Zoom lobby for these higher stakes before they start seeing players.

You didn't use the word "never," but it does make me laugh at the number of people in the last 100 posts that say PLO500 Zoom will never run. These people might be better off never saying never. You only have to re-read the last years worth of Pokerstars NLH thread to see people saying that Zoom NLH500 would "never" run and it is at 100 people in the pool as I write this. And there is an occasional Zoom NLH1000 that runs short handed. Therefore it is reasonable to assume Zoom PLO mid-stakes is coming sooner or later. I'd rather be proactive now so that it runs deep ante for th already mentioned reason, just sayin'.

All the 22/17 nitfish should be gratefull that the zoom entries are limited to four and the 200 games remain so soft that they can break even and pay the rent with rakeback.