Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Heads Up NL Discussion of heads up NL Texas Hold'em cash games

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-22-2013, 03:51 PM   #51
joeri
old hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: bemyguestbud/l0ve2playu
Posts: 1,239
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

No replace.
joeri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 03:52 PM   #52
czechvengeance
old hand
 
czechvengeance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: perfecting my bumhunting skillz
Posts: 1,801
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by kabyz View Post
/facepalm

both of these options are bad and arguably worse than the current system. both of these options will lead to only the better regs sitting and crushing the fish, who will have less fun and deposit less long-term, thus ruining it for everyone

the best option is a soft koth where you tweak the number of tables (one table a person, add table button, and the arrange a match feature can stay too) so that all of the good regs and some of the weak regs can sit. this means fish and weaker regs don't have to battle the absolute top everytime they want to play, but it cleans up the lobby and largely stops predatory practices. i have no idea why you fail to consider this possiblity



mandatory 2 hands would be good although grimming isn't that big a deal with no mandatory auto-post (like on ipoker) and they can only do it to you once
+1 for soft KOTH

@TC: no afaik they want to get completely rid of the current state, so all tables will have forced # of hands


If i had to choose the lesser evil i'd want option #1
czechvengeance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 05:26 PM   #53
blopp
Pooh-Bah
 
blopp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Skjervoy
Posts: 3,756
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerStars Nick View Post
Cons[LIST]
[*]Potentially some capacity for harassment from groups of players who want to keep targeted individuals from playing.[*]Without sufficient notice, it could be a bad experience to be forced to play hands.[*]Recreational players who prefer to select from a large pool of opponents will lose some amount of choice
[*]Top players may have to continually join new tables if other players are not willing to play them for longer than the minimum number of hands.
Good that stars are looking into this, just make sure you police multiaccounting hard after implementing this...

I vote option 1.

If you want to solve the bolded and to create more action cap the amount of times someone can seat the same player in a 24hour span or something. This way the 2-10 best regs can still seat, will give some action the the persons above them on the list while the absolute 1 or a group can abuse them to hard (that way they can get seat nr 2 and pay a price vs nr 1 reg in the playerpool while not having to play 1 all day)..

Im sure the best regs will enjoy this as well since they get a bit of action from the second best regs as well.
blopp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 05:53 PM   #54
jakedamus
old hand
 
jakedamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka"
Posts: 1,923
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by kabyz View Post
/facepalm

both of these options are bad and arguably worse than the current system. both of these options will lead to only the better regs sitting and crushing the fish, who will have less fun and deposit less long-term, thus ruining it for everyone

the best option is a soft koth where you tweak the number of tables (one table a person, add table button, and the arrange a match feature can stay too) so that all of the good regs and some of the weak regs can sit. this means fish and weaker regs don't have to battle the absolute top everytime they want to play, but it cleans up the lobby and largely stops predatory practices. i have no idea why you fail to consider this possiblity



mandatory 2 hands would be good although grimming isn't that big a deal with no mandatory auto-post (like on ipoker) and they can only do it to you once
+ 1

Its so simple, Cap the number of tables.
jakedamus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 05:57 PM   #55
czechvengeance
old hand
 
czechvengeance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: perfecting my bumhunting skillz
Posts: 1,801
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

also: in option 1 is it restricted that after playing the forced amount of hands when the same players sit againt that SAME day do they have to play again? seems like theres a lot of room for abuse

and does PS have any idea whats the distribution between these groups? like 20% rec 30% lotery players etc
czechvengeance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 06:43 PM   #56
msm89dk
centurion
 
msm89dk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 180
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

I think none of the solutions are good enough.

Do this simple change:

- 10 tables at each stake with 1 player waiting allowed (maybe the numbers could be adjusted in regards to the amount of players playing at that stake. I expect NL100-200 to be very populated for example. Maybe have some sort of running calculation on the amount of allowed table at each stake in regards to the amount of played hands at that stake or amount of action measured in some other way)
- Unlimited tables with 2 players playing allowed at each stake (obviously).
- Everybody can leave at any time, but then you give up the table obv
- Each player is only allowed to sit 2 different stakes, for 1 table (= only allowed to have 2 HU bumhunting tables)
- When you play you have the "Open Table" option that you discussed in OP, so that when you play an opponent you're allowed to play alot of tables if you want

I think this would cut out alot of players who only intend to bumhunt recreationals, but leave everyone else happy/justified with the situation.

Stronger regulars: obv happy, no explenation needed
Weaker regulars: have to identify which stakes they are comfortable battling at, and must step back from bumhunting higher stakes. They will not be abused by stronger regulars if they simply identify their skill/stakes (cuz the stronger regs can only sit 2 different stakes)
Lottery player/only bumhunting: have to do the same as the weaker regs, if they dont have any talent or wish to put any effort in becoming better then too bad, move way down or go home
Recreational players: still have a nice clean lobby to choose from, and will surely get action

With this system it is most likely that no table will be sat without play engaging. This is good for the amount of tables running. Everyone who wants to play will get action and very few will probably leave their table

Since I don't believe there are very many purely recreational players left, but simply weaker regs, I think this is a nice system to ensure regs playing with each other, creating more action and more rake for you, PokerStars.

The only downside I see is that the weak regs might move down to much, give up in the competition for higher stakes. Lets say a dude normally plays NL100-600. He simply starts playing NL50-NL200, making the stronger regs lack these players in the playerpool NL400-600. Because sometimes weaker regs sitting in the lobby give you action for a few hundred hands. If they would have to battle for the tables and get crushed alot, maybe they just move down, and stronger regs would not be able to follow them b/c it's probly still more profitable for them to use their 2 stakes at higher limits. I meen, like alot of my profit is from sitting all regs and simply sometimes getting action from someone who picks up the glove. Then maybe win 3-4 buy-ins from them and they don't wanna play no more.. If this system is implemented maybe that option would be decreased.

However I expect the upsides to be far greater than this possible downside, so this change would def seem good to me, and also fair to all.

Another issue tho: how to avoid that the very best reg at each stake don't simply sit all 10 tables all the time to scare away the stronger regs and leave room for weaker regs?

Last edited by msm89dk; 08-22-2013 at 06:58 PM.
msm89dk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 07:35 PM   #57
Kanu
adept
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 754
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Thanks for taking the time to try to sort this issue out and to get feedback from players before doing so. I agree with the people who posted saying that by far the best and simplest solution is to just only allow a certain number of tables with 1 player sitting with 1 table per person per limit. This is kind of what you are trying to do with option 2 but it looks like that needs to be cleaned up a lot before implementing. If there is 1 thing that is clear from the last few years of online poker it is that if you leave room for people to exploit the system, they will absolutely do it. If you implemented option 2 in its current form then you would either have to police it or you would just have people angle shooting all over the place. Your problem scenario would go on all the time and it would probably end up being pretty unpleasant for everyone who isn't prepared to sit there all day dealing with angle shooters.

I also think that both of the options are too harsh on the weak regulars. If these players are prepared to play against other regulars a lot of the time then it seems pretty unfair for the better players to then get all the recreational player action despite the fact that the weak regulars are actually the ones "giving action" in the hope of getting a table. The strong regulars are getting the weak regular action plus the recreational player action if the system means that weak regulars can never sit at a visible table or never sit without having strong regulars constantly sitting with them. Option 2 could perhaps be modified to include a system whereby if you are playing a multi-table match then you get an automatic visible table as well where you can decline action but keep the table? That is probably open to some exploiting as well but I'm not sure what the best solution is for Option 2 here.

For option 1 I think that you would need to have a number of hands/day vs someone (or something similar) after which you can decline their action and keep a table for the rest of the day. That would stop harassment issues. It seems like the best reg has too much power in this option atm. He can basically pick on anybody he likes and force them to get off the tables. If this person were prepared to play almost any other player but had already lost a load to the best player and wanted to refuse action then this would seem pretty unfair. Essentially if the best reg is reasonable then it works well, if not then most people (or whoever he picks on) will not enjoy the system at all.

A few other things to consider when designing a good system though are:

1) Make sure the incentives are right. In option 1 atm the best reg is incentivised to sit with people all day long and everyone else will therefore be incentivised to not sit which leads to less action between other regs with the best reg dominating the lobby and getting all fish action. This is fixed by limiting the power to do that for the best reg by the number of hands per day fix or a length of time that you can't sit with someone who quit you like 1 hour or something. In option 2 atm people are incentivised to exploit the system in order to take the visible tables for themselves. This would def happen so something needs to be in place to stop it. 1 possible solution is to ban players cheating the system. Another possible solution is to introduce an amount of time which people can't have a visible table for after quitting someone. So if Player A wants to abuse the system by sitting with Player B with the intention of only playing a few hands but then taking the new visible table, when they quit after a few hands, they will no longer be able to have a visible table for 30 mins/1 hour.

2) Cater to the weak regulars a little more. People playing better regs to improve/get tables is good for the health of the games and should be encouraged. Under the current proposals it seems they would get very little return on any investment of attempting to be able to sit at tables and wait for good action.

3) Make sure that any forced playing is not too intrusive. Imagine I want to play HU so I sit at a table at 3 different limits but then start-up some 6max games while I wait for action. I max out how many 6max tables I am comfortable with and then someone decides to sit on all of my HU tables at the same time. I now have far too many tables to play at once with a mix of HU and 6max. There would need to be a long enough time delay between him sitting and forced play starting for me to be able to check the sitout next bb box at my 6max tables and have the blind come round to me. Also there is a potential exploit here in that someone could angleshoot me by seeing that I am playing 6max, sit at all my tables, get me to quit my 6max games and then he can sitout and leave after the minimum hands on each table. Now the next time he does this, what am I supposed to do? I want to play him HU but I don't want to quit my 6max games just to play the minimum number of hands. He could essentially angleshoot the tables away from me despite having no intention to play for a reasonable length of time. Either that or I have to not play 6max while waiting for HU action to avoid having people angleshoot me.

4) Make sure that the solution is not unreasonable for lower stakes players. At lower stakes the rake is simply too high to sustain a lot of reg on reg action. For 1 reg to be beating the rake, the other reg has to be losing at such a high rate that he won't be playing for long. A possible solution to that would be to have a similar system but with the option to play multi-table matches with significantly lower rake. For example if you add a second table then you only play 80% of the normal rake at each of the 2 tables, 70% if you play 3, 60% if you play 4 etc. This encourages people to play more tables = good for stars and gives the regs a fighting chance of beating the rake and moving up in stakes. Another option is to just have a similar system to option 2 but much less harsh. A limited number of tables but much closer to the number of people that want to sit than at high stakes. That way you will probably have to have some reg battles to establish yourself as someone who can sit but you will still be able to keep a decent ratio of hands coming against weaker players meaning that you are able to beat the rake. Anything that causes low stakes players to play other regs for the vast majority of their hands will probably make the games unbeatable and cut out HU play as an option for someone looking to move up. That can't be good long-term for anyone.

5) Finally, thanks to stars again for committing to resolve the issue and I hope you come up with something good. My personal opinion is that the best solution is 1 that doesn't discriminate between how good players are but how willing they are to play people. If the best and the 10th best players at a limit are both prepared to play anyone then they should have an equal chance of playing against recreational players. This keeps the games healthier long-term as the money is spread about between a number of HU regs who are prepared to battle regs and these people will therefore battle regs longer term. Any solution which gives all the fish money to the best 1 or 2 players means that HU games below that standard get largely cut out and HU just becomes a way for the best couple of players at each limit to take the money from any fish that wants to play HU. While there will probably be some battling initially for the top couple of spots and then occasionally when someone wants to move up (more action than now still I would guess), for the most part I would imagine that this wouldn't be the best way to encourage action. Basically you want anyone who is prepared to battle regs for the ability to sit to be able to do so and to be able to sit as a result of their battling. Option 1 achieves this pretty well with some modifications and option 2 achieves this if you get the number of visible tables right and stop angleshooting.
Kanu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 07:48 PM   #58
TooCuriousso1
#TeamUSA
 
TooCuriousso1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: @TCfromUB
Posts: 5,208
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

that is a very good post ^. both options seem to reward the strong regulars too much and hurt the weak regulars too much. ideal/simple scenario imo is:

capped tables, 1 table per stake, can only sit 3 stakes total, FTP add table button and something like:

4 50/100
8 25/50
12 10/20
16 5/10
20 3/6
25 2/4
40 1/2
60 .5/1

or something. stars could better figure out the right number of each. and it'd be easy to adjust in the future if they were slightly off from ideal.

Last edited by TooCuriousso1; 08-22-2013 at 08:06 PM.
TooCuriousso1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 07:56 PM   #59
Mejis
veteran
 
Mejis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: yo goober where's the meat?
Posts: 2,047
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakedamus View Post
+ 1

Its so simple, Cap the number of tables.
yup capped # of tables would solve a lot
It's just too easy for 6max regs and strict bumhunters to sit down and wait for fish on stars/which also makes it harder for a reg to find action since the lobby is so cluttered

Not a fan of option #1 but dealing sets of 2 hands makes sense

The Add-a-table button seems like a no brainer adjustment to me-not a huge hassle at the moment but would be an improvement
Mejis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 08:09 PM   #60
poqw
newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 47
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Weak regs just drop poker.Fish get killed quicker.
poqw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 08:29 PM   #61
Chriseddy999
grinder
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by msm89dk View Post
I think none of the solutions are good enough.

Do this simple change:

- 10 tables at each stake with 1 player waiting allowed (maybe the numbers could be adjusted in regards to the amount of players playing at that stake. I expect NL100-200 to be very populated for example. Maybe have some sort of running calculation on the amount of allowed table at each stake in regards to the amount of played hands at that stake or amount of action measured in some other way)
- Unlimited tables with 2 players playing allowed at each stake (obviously).
- Everybody can leave at any time, but then you give up the table obv
- Each player is only allowed to sit 2 different stakes, for 1 table (= only allowed to have 2 HU bumhunting tables)
- When you play you have the "Open Table" option that you discussed in OP, so that when you play an opponent you're allowed to play alot of tables if you want

I think this would cut out alot of players who only intend to bumhunt recreationals, but leave everyone else happy/justified with the situation.

Stronger regulars: obv happy, no explenation needed
Weaker regulars: have to identify which stakes they are comfortable battling at, and must step back from bumhunting higher stakes. They will not be abused by stronger regulars if they simply identify their skill/stakes (cuz the stronger regs can only sit 2 different stakes)
Lottery player/only bumhunting: have to do the same as the weaker regs, if they dont have any talent or wish to put any effort in becoming better then too bad, move way down or go home
Recreational players: still have a nice clean lobby to choose from, and will surely get action

With this system it is most likely that no table will be sat without play engaging. This is good for the amount of tables running. Everyone who wants to play will get action and very few will probably leave their table

Since I don't believe there are very many purely recreational players left, but simply weaker regs, I think this is a nice system to ensure regs playing with each other, creating more action and more rake for you, PokerStars.

The only downside I see is that the weak regs might move down to much, give up in the competition for higher stakes. Lets say a dude normally plays NL100-600. He simply starts playing NL50-NL200, making the stronger regs lack these players in the playerpool NL400-600. Because sometimes weaker regs sitting in the lobby give you action for a few hundred hands. If they would have to battle for the tables and get crushed alot, maybe they just move down, and stronger regs would not be able to follow them b/c it's probly still more profitable for them to use their 2 stakes at higher limits. I meen, like alot of my profit is from sitting all regs and simply sometimes getting action from someone who picks up the glove. Then maybe win 3-4 buy-ins from them and they don't wanna play no more.. If this system is implemented maybe that option would be decreased.

However I expect the upsides to be far greater than this possible downside, so this change would def seem good to me, and also fair to all.

Another issue tho: how to avoid that the very best reg at each stake don't simply sit all 10 tables all the time to scare away the stronger regs and leave room for weaker regs?
+1 very good post. seems by far the best format
Chriseddy999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 08:50 PM   #62
Chriseddy999
grinder
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by TooCuriousso1 View Post
that is a very good post ^. both options seem to reward the strong regulars too much and hurt the weak regulars too much. ideal/simple scenario imo is:

capped tables, 1 table per stake, can only sit 3 stakes total, FTP add table button and something like:

4 50/100
8 25/50
12 10/20
16 5/10
20 3/6
25 2/4
40 1/2
60 .5/1

or something. stars could better figure out the right number of each. and it'd be easy to adjust in the future if they were slightly off from ideal.
A very good post also, 100% agree with everything. All stars needs to do is find the ideal number of tables per limit and the problem is solved. Number the tables so the weaker regs can battle out at the bottom. Lottery players not accounted for but hey, they've had it their way for too long
Chriseddy999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 08:50 PM   #63
disco5tu
old hand
 
disco5tu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,301
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

what Kanu said. spot on.
disco5tu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 08:55 PM   #64
Stake Monster
Pooh-Bah
 
Stake Monster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 5,941
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

I would be fine with a capped # of tables (smaller @ higher stakes and more @ 25-200nl) along with easy ways to set up matches/prevent grimming (which PS is addressing already). I think as Kanu said it's key that the weak regs get to sit/play also and that the system cannot be so restrictive as to only allow the very top guys to play. If that was the case then every stake would instantly become way harder as people move down.

Last edited by Stake Monster; 08-22-2013 at 09:05 PM.
Stake Monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 09:28 PM   #65
torodwan
enthusiast
 
torodwan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 81
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanu View Post
Thanks for taking the time to try to sort this issue out and to get feedback from players before doing so. I agree with the people who posted saying that by far the best and simplest solution is to just only allow a certain number of tables with 1 player sitting with 1 table per person per limit. This is kind of what you are trying to do with option 2 but it looks like that needs to be cleaned up a lot before implementing. If there is 1 thing that is clear from the last few years of online poker it is that if you leave room for people to exploit the system, they will absolutely do it. If you implemented option 2 in its current form then you would either have to police it or you would just have people angle shooting all over the place. Your problem scenario would go on all the time and it would probably end up being pretty unpleasant for everyone who isn't prepared to sit there all day dealing with angle shooters.

I also think that both of the options are too harsh on the weak regulars. If these players are prepared to play against other regulars a lot of the time then it seems pretty unfair for the better players to then get all the recreational player action despite the fact that the weak regulars are actually the ones "giving action" in the hope of getting a table. The strong regulars are getting the weak regular action plus the recreational player action if the system means that weak regulars can never sit at a visible table or never sit without having strong regulars constantly sitting with them. Option 2 could perhaps be modified to include a system whereby if you are playing a multi-table match then you get an automatic visible table as well where you can decline action but keep the table? That is probably open to some exploiting as well but I'm not sure what the best solution is for Option 2 here.

For option 1 I think that you would need to have a number of hands/day vs someone (or something similar) after which you can decline their action and keep a table for the rest of the day. That would stop harassment issues. It seems like the best reg has too much power in this option atm. He can basically pick on anybody he likes and force them to get off the tables. If this person were prepared to play almost any other player but had already lost a load to the best player and wanted to refuse action then this would seem pretty unfair. Essentially if the best reg is reasonable then it works well, if not then most people (or whoever he picks on) will not enjoy the system at all.

A few other things to consider when designing a good system though are:

1) Make sure the incentives are right. In option 1 atm the best reg is incentivised to sit with people all day long and everyone else will therefore be incentivised to not sit which leads to less action between other regs with the best reg dominating the lobby and getting all fish action. This is fixed by limiting the power to do that for the best reg by the number of hands per day fix or a length of time that you can't sit with someone who quit you like 1 hour or something. In option 2 atm people are incentivised to exploit the system in order to take the visible tables for themselves. This would def happen so something needs to be in place to stop it. 1 possible solution is to ban players cheating the system. Another possible solution is to introduce an amount of time which people can't have a visible table for after quitting someone. So if Player A wants to abuse the system by sitting with Player B with the intention of only playing a few hands but then taking the new visible table, when they quit after a few hands, they will no longer be able to have a visible table for 30 mins/1 hour.

2) Cater to the weak regulars a little more. People playing better regs to improve/get tables is good for the health of the games and should be encouraged. Under the current proposals it seems they would get very little return on any investment of attempting to be able to sit at tables and wait for good action.

3) Make sure that any forced playing is not too intrusive. Imagine I want to play HU so I sit at a table at 3 different limits but then start-up some 6max games while I wait for action. I max out how many 6max tables I am comfortable with and then someone decides to sit on all of my HU tables at the same time. I now have far too many tables to play at once with a mix of HU and 6max. There would need to be a long enough time delay between him sitting and forced play starting for me to be able to check the sitout next bb box at my 6max tables and have the blind come round to me. Also there is a potential exploit here in that someone could angleshoot me by seeing that I am playing 6max, sit at all my tables, get me to quit my 6max games and then he can sitout and leave after the minimum hands on each table. Now the next time he does this, what am I supposed to do? I want to play him HU but I don't want to quit my 6max games just to play the minimum number of hands. He could essentially angleshoot the tables away from me despite having no intention to play for a reasonable length of time. Either that or I have to not play 6max while waiting for HU action to avoid having people angleshoot me.

4) Make sure that the solution is not unreasonable for lower stakes players. At lower stakes the rake is simply too high to sustain a lot of reg on reg action. For 1 reg to be beating the rake, the other reg has to be losing at such a high rate that he won't be playing for long. A possible solution to that would be to have a similar system but with the option to play multi-table matches with significantly lower rake. For example if you add a second table then you only play 80% of the normal rake at each of the 2 tables, 70% if you play 3, 60% if you play 4 etc. This encourages people to play more tables = good for stars and gives the regs a fighting chance of beating the rake and moving up in stakes. Another option is to just have a similar system to option 2 but much less harsh. A limited number of tables but much closer to the number of people that want to sit than at high stakes. That way you will probably have to have some reg battles to establish yourself as someone who can sit but you will still be able to keep a decent ratio of hands coming against weaker players meaning that you are able to beat the rake. Anything that causes low stakes players to play other regs for the vast majority of their hands will probably make the games unbeatable and cut out HU play as an option for someone looking to move up. That can't be good long-term for anyone.

5) Finally, thanks to stars again for committing to resolve the issue and I hope you come up with something good. My personal opinion is that the best solution is 1 that doesn't discriminate between how good players are but how willing they are to play people. If the best and the 10th best players at a limit are both prepared to play anyone then they should have an equal chance of playing against recreational players. This keeps the games healthier long-term as the money is spread about between a number of HU regs who are prepared to battle regs and these people will therefore battle regs longer term. Any solution which gives all the fish money to the best 1 or 2 players means that HU games below that standard get largely cut out and HU just becomes a way for the best couple of players at each limit to take the money from any fish that wants to play HU. While there will probably be some battling initially for the top couple of spots and then occasionally when someone wants to move up (more action than now still I would guess), for the most part I would imagine that this wouldn't be the best way to encourage action. Basically you want anyone who is prepared to battle regs for the ability to sit to be able to do so and to be able to sit as a result of their battling. Option 1 achieves this pretty well with some modifications and option 2 achieves this if you get the number of visible tables right and stop angleshooting.
+1
torodwan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 10:29 PM   #66
torodwan
enthusiast
 
torodwan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 81
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

If all you concerned about is lobby appearance just show 5 tables per limit per version (cap & Regular) with 1 person sitting and have it randomly rotate which are visible. Randomly rotating visible tables should be easy to implement since you currently do this with the lobby. I do not think you understand the level of harassment weak regs (and lottery/bumhunters which your not concerned with) would encounter with either of the 2 systems you proposed. A possible solution would be after you play a certain number of hands vs a opponent say a 1000 you can add him to a block list of players you wish not to play and they would be unable to sit at your heads up tables. Here is how 5 table per limit idea lines up with your judging criteria.

Judging Criteria
We aim to meet the following goals:
Transparency to all players is valued highly. (Flag all heads up lobbys with this info)
The solution must be simple to use. (Check)
The solution should allow players to concentrate on playing poker. Generally speaking, we’d like to maximize the ratio of time spent at tables to time spent in the lobby (It would behoove you to play the person that sits at your table because who knows how long before your table becomes visible again)
The solution should result in a clean and simple lobby. (heads up lobbys would be clean and uncluttered)

What ever change you implement should have a trial period also or possibly just implement it at 600nl and above.
torodwan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 11:30 PM   #67
d2themfi
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,263
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

My suggestion

1 unoccupied table per limit... When you play the King of The Hill, you win, or you die
d2themfi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 01:36 AM   #68
MurderbyNumbers234
journeyman
 
MurderbyNumbers234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 266
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

For any of the tougher regs who think either of these options will be more profitable, forget it. The faucet turns off for everyone.

Because now, you won't have your choice of weaker regs to battle. Both of these options make it so only the top 4-5 players online are your only regular competition. The fish are going to be there hurricaning money into whatever vacuum exists, be it a 5 reg lobby or a 50 reg lobby, so they are an irrelevant part of the equation and there is no need to discuss them.

I repeat, I understand that it is easy to beat weak regs. I know many people who make a living doing only this. But realize weak regs will too be gone entirely. If you are an NL player, your reg options will be Sauce, Jungleman, or Phil Galfond. Enjoy that edge...

As far as stars is concerned, realize that the near certainty of massive collusion and fixing among the top regs is reason enough to never let any of this start up.

I understand you are trying to fix what you percieve as a "problem". And thats noble, it really is. But there simply is no problem right now that can be fixed by a more reasonable solution. Many problems don't have answers and just screwing with it more makes it worse. And what's more, your claim that you are going to push forward with an arbitrary plan no matter how clumsy and problematic it is is just bad business.

This is without a doubt the single most unfair proposed change in online poker. You are literally taking away all of the profitable players winnings and pooling them to give to 4-5 of the top players. It's just so unfair that you are doing this it makes me sick.

Sure there's the token complaining, "games are dead" "I have to wait for action etc." But everyone is more or less happy. Leave it be before you cause a problem for yourself.

I am very curious to see why you think this "problem" must be "fixed"... You won't make more money(action is NOT encouraged by KOTH as example after example has shown) everyone loses their job, cheating, angling, and deal-making will begin occurring behind closed doors at the highest levels of the game, and fish don't care and if anything will lose faster to a more skilled opponent...

Please explain?

Last edited by MurderbyNumbers234; 08-23-2013 at 01:55 AM.
MurderbyNumbers234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 02:47 AM   #69
babomor
enthusiast
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 63
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by torodwan View Post
If all you concerned about is lobby appearance just show 5 tables per limit per version (cap & Regular) with 1 person sitting and have it randomly rotate which are visible. Randomly rotating visible tables should be easy to implement since you currently do this with the lobby. I do not think you understand the level of harassment weak regs (and lottery/bumhunters which your not concerned with) would encounter with either of the 2 systems you proposed. A possible solution would be after you play a certain number of hands vs a opponent say a 1000 you can add him to a block list of players you wish not to play and they would be unable to sit at your heads up tables. Here is how 5 table per limit idea lines up with your judging criteria.

Judging Criteria
We aim to meet the following goals:
Transparency to all players is valued highly. (Flag all heads up lobbys with this info)
The solution must be simple to use. (Check)
The solution should allow players to concentrate on playing poker. Generally speaking, we’d like to maximize the ratio of time spent at tables to time spent in the lobby (It would behoove you to play the person that sits at your table because who knows how long before your table becomes visible again)
The solution should result in a clean and simple lobby. (heads up lobbys would be clean and uncluttered)

What ever change you implement should have a trial period also or possibly just implement it at 600nl and above.
Weak regs would still be harassed by having 5 rotating tables showing.
Anytime a bumhunter or weak reg has a visible table he will be insta sat by a strong regular and lose the visible table, having rotating 5rotating tables would actually be similar to have a 5table cap.

I think being able to ban somebody forever after a 1000 hands is not going to change anything and promotes multiaccounting, a daily ban after a certain number of hands would be much better.

Kanu has said some wise words, which hopefully will be heard.
babomor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 04:04 AM   #70
Gabbien
enthusiast
 
Gabbien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Moscow
Posts: 94
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Prefer #1...
#2 is pure bs... Recreational players would have bigger chance winning some money playing roulette or slots than playing the group of top regs who's gonna control all the stakes. Best regulars will not play each other much (same as they don't do it now), many other players will leave pokerstars as probably only a few would like to battle only the best ones with that 0,5$ rake cap.
BTW, why doesnt PS team ever considers reducing the rake at least for the low stakes? For example, making it ~0,25$ for nl50 and 0,35$ for nl100?
If you wanna clean the lobby and increase the action, that's just perfect but please... just make it wise, take into consideration not only a group of players who prefers to post here thousands of messages with their complaints and brilliant ideas on "how to make it better for all" instead of playing each other...
Gabbien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 04:11 AM   #71
dotbum
in ur facebook
 
dotbum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: dothunting
Posts: 1,310
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerStars Nick View Post
We have committed to finalizing our solution to clean up the Heads Up lobby by the end of this year, and while we have gone through several iterations of solutions, we haven’t yet found a “silver bullet” solution that solves all issues smoothly and elegantly. However, enough time has passed with this problem only getting worse that we simply need to move forward with a solution, even if it is not quite as elegant an implementation as we might have initially liked.
.
Is it possible that you are creating cures that are worse than the disease, when you haven't found what you are looking for but are eager to meet your self-imposed deadline? You have all the time you need to find a solution.

I agree that the lobbies are currently a problem, but the two proposed solutions, by your own admission, will basically leave a few elite players and the recreational players. Believe me, it's not 2008 any more, the best players see all your leaks, rec or pro, and they punish you for them efficiently. It doesn't matter whether the recs understand why they are enjoying themselves less, going bust faster, experiencing fewer positive emotions, the results will be the same. less fun = less deposits.

You may have already done so, but please study the party 5/10 games on your own and come to your own conclusions rather than listen to what we have to say.

I love hu, but I will have to walk away from it on stars if these plans become a reality. Please encourage me to play competitively with weaker regs like myself, rather than having to leave the game completely. A soft koth with alphabetically sorted tables might work better, as someone else suggested.
dotbum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 04:19 AM   #72
dotbum
in ur facebook
 
dotbum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: dothunting
Posts: 1,310
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Also I'm very disappointed by your stance on not actively monitoring your system. The one thing I was really looking forward to with stars making these changes was the fact that you are usually more on the ball than other sites and would at least try to ensure the amount of angle shooting going on on other sites.
dotbum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 04:22 AM   #73
Catchx
stranger
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 12
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by kabyz View Post
/facepalm

both of these options are bad and arguably worse than the current system. both of these options will lead to only the better regs sitting and crushing the fish, who will have less fun and deposit less long-term, thus ruining it for everyone

the best option is a soft koth where you tweak the number of tables (one table a person, add table button, and the arrange a match feature can stay too) so that all of the good regs and some of the weak regs can sit. this means fish and weaker regs don't have to battle the absolute top everytime they want to play, but it cleans up the lobby and largely stops predatory practices. i have no idea why you fail to consider this possiblity



mandatory 2 hands would be good although grimming isn't that big a deal with no mandatory auto-post (like on ipoker) and they can only do it to you once
This, cap the tables to some degree and 4 empty hu tables max.
Catchx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 05:06 AM   #74
wyvo
veteran
 
wyvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,378
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawg View Post
The best system I've seen ever was at old B2B (Entraction) where the tables were ranked alphabetically and the "top tables" were thought to generate more recreationals than the others. However, regular ~M-tables did also get its fair share of action, but just not as much as the top tables. Battles started to develop, and then battles for second top tables and third etc. On such a big site like Stars I'm sure that every decent battling regular would know the names of the top 10 tables within a month and know exactly what to fight for.


Of the mentioned options in the post I'm not really sure which would be the best. The biggest problem as I see it is all the bullying that comes with this, players will fight in packs and you'll know that "Oh you can't sit with him cos then his mate who plays much higher will join you later". That's essentially what ruined Party wasn't it?


I don't like the fact that we are calculating what the recreational players "will" do and what they "will" think about certain changes. The thing that made B2B great was that there wasn't any scientifical proof what was what, if the bottom table was better than the 3rd top or whatever. I think you (/we all) should choose a system that just has a certain amount of simple rules and then see what develops rather than tell the recreational players to their faces that you probably won't go to the options lobby and unhide the rest of the lobby.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TooCuriousso1 View Post
that is a very good post ^. both options seem to reward the strong regulars too much and hurt the weak regulars too much. ideal/simple scenario imo is:

capped tables, 1 table per stake, can only sit 3 stakes total, FTP add table button and something like:

4 50/100
8 25/50
12 10/20
16 5/10
20 3/6
25 2/4
40 1/2
60 .5/1

or something. stars could better figure out the right number of each. and it'd be easy to adjust in the future if they were slightly off from ideal.
I think these 2 options are the only way forward and maybe a combination of both e.g. increasing the table cap TC has said but introducing the "A" table system along side it as well so maybe at 50-200nl there is 2x the alphabet in letters so e.g. 2x A tables 2x B tables and so on then when u get to the mid stakes have just 1x each letter so 26 tables then the higher stakes 10/20+ u could introduce a lower amount of letters say up to 10-15 with the "A" system also.

This to me seems like the fairest but also best way to implement a system that both reduces that amount of empty tables but yet increases action to fight for the "top tables" as they are more premium!

But both the systems suggest by stars are just not good imo

Last edited by wyvo; 08-23-2013 at 05:14 AM.
wyvo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2013, 05:07 AM   #75
jakedamus
old hand
 
jakedamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka"
Posts: 1,923
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriseddy999 View Post
A very good post also, 100% agree with everything. All stars needs to do is find the ideal number of tables per limit and the problem is solved. Number the tables so the weaker regs can battle out at the bottom. Lottery players not accounted for but hey, they've had it their way for too long
Exactly
jakedamus is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online