then it goes to $3/6... $2/4... why stop?

this was my main concern, especially considering how much higher in terms of bb/100 mid and low stakes is raked.

Why aren't you playing 2/5 ZOOM HU right now? Based on the hordes of people complaining about not being able to find a game, those tables should be 25+ players deep 24/7.

Because Zoom is stupid?

I mean, I'm sure everyone doesn't feel that way, but when I play HU I play to tilt the guy into spewing off loads of buy ins. Kind of hard to do that playing Zoom..

Zoom also takes away most of the meta game stuff that is involved in HU and that is my favorite part about playing HU. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way.

I do play it some, but yeah the previous poster is right, it sucks. I lose focus really easily and definitely dont play well when I have guys in the pool who are opening to 2x, 2.25x, 2.5x, 3x and it keeps jumping around. It's just not the same dynamic as a regular heads up match which I prefer.

why dont you play 2/5 zoom hu and then ask if any of the winning/breakeven reg there wants to play heads up on a regular table vs you?
if not having meta game is your only concern

Why won't these same players play anyone that is half decent who sits them on a regular table? The answer is the majority want to bum hunt and the minority want to play poker.

Imo the solution to the HU problem and cash problem in general is a general lobby where you pick your stake and game types and then are randomly seated with a player/table. If you deny to play more than X amount of times you get a penalty for X amount of time and can't sit any tables.

That solution eliminates scripts, hardcore bum hunting, and players being forced to Zoom. Stars has the lobby for this already programmed and use it for play money tables. Party Poker NJ uses this same type of lobby as well.

that is not true, very often when 500 zoom hu do run ,there are no fish(bad enough for a true bumhunters to want to play) and mostly breakeven/winning regs.

If you think about it, the best player on 2/4 and 3/6 would be so eager to wait there since it doesnt run that often,he would always get 1 worse winning reg than him to play hu with for at least 1-2 hours until it either fills or it doesnt?

This shows that the top 2/4-3/6 players are too much of a wuss to sit there daily OR its obvious that the top 5-10 ranked players of 400/600 nl/plo in the world does not really want to battle slightly better player than themself to moved up the rank.

The problem with Zoom is that when it comes down to it, the only incentive to join is among regs who already wanted to play vs each other at a regular table. If they join zoom instead, they may have a fish join them. And sometimes those guys won't even want to play on zoom tables rather than regular tables because they don't want the hassle of their HUD not working or perhaps they dislike when someone enters 1 time while they're in 4 times, and they have a table inactive every now and then, which gets them fewer hands per hour.

I've played a lot of zoom at 1/2 (8k hands), 2/5 (23k hands) and 5/10 (10k hands). Sometimes it runs with no fish, often times not. Lower than 5/10 the game basically won't run if I enter 4 times, which sucks, because the nature of the game gives incentive for higher stakes regs to grind lower and get extra volume. It sounded nice in theory to me, but now if I see 2/5 running I try to sneak in 2 entries to see if that won't kill the game. It's a **** situation and I'm not trying to brag, I'm just explaining why all the guys who are "dying for action" can't "just join 2/5 zoom". The game will break if the weak regs in the pool feel that too many strong regs joined, and no strong reg is going to sit idle while a bunch of weak regs battle it out in a game with open seating. With no mark who specifically loves to play zoom, the higher stakes zoom games are not going to work. And honestly, why the hell would someone prefer zoom over regular tables? It's slow as hell, confusing to most people and you can't even rail the games or chat effectively.

1/2 traffic has been lower lately as well it seems so I'm not optimistic about this format. On the flip side, I can't remember the last time I opened the stars lobby and didn't see 10/20+ going. Let's just get the damn add a table button so there's a hard cap on inactive tables instead of total tables.

Oh I should mention though, because I think zoom is a smart idea, that I can't for the life of me understand why the game breaks. Every time zoom somehow hits a certain threshold of entries, it blows up and fish start joining. Has nobody noticed this? The incentive is there to play but perhaps it's too low for some and others just don't realize it. I think a cap on the number of entries at high stakes might be useful simply because some people don't want to or can't afford to 4 table at 5/10 to get a shot at 1 fish. Before scrapping zoom I'd definitely try to lower the entry cap to 2 tables.

ipoker system is currently the best of all. allowing for open sitting multiple stakes and 4 tables total creates a really good balance between stakes.

top regs take 4 5/10, next skill level take 4 3/6 etc. if they reduced tables in lobby of each stake by 15-25% i think it would be perfect and stars should follow in their footsteps.

that's an odd statement, I've been seeing way more HU action at 5/10+ on stars than on ipoker and it's not even close

i agree. as you hinted at you only need to battle regs at your specific stake. unlike what would end end up happening on stars with a KOTH - where high stakes players sit from (something like) 2/4 to 25/50.

+1

Don't understand why stars hasn't solved this by now, just make a '+1 table' or something that autocloses when one player leaves it (just like it auto closes your 2nd open seating table these days), doesn't sound like that should be too hard to implement.

I fotmulated my post badly.. it is my opinion, not a statement of facts. Suppose their system was implemented by stars across all stakes, i think it would better the action even more than what we've seen with the recent changes (10/20+), dont you?

absolutely not

+1

why not?

a player that can get a table at 25-50 regularly will not be sitting at 2-4... thats just the way it is

not true.

i've just checked the lobby now and the first 2 players at 5k that weren't hidden... one is sat 400+ up and the other 600+.

if KOTH went all the way down players are even more likely to do this imo. hence a table cap being a good idea.

wouldnt this be bad for the players at lower stakes that have to battle it out vs a 25-50 player?

but yes i for KOTH

with a table cap they wouldnt have incentive to do this, they would take tables higher, for ex. 2 at 25/50 and 2 at 10/20 with a table cap of 4.

No need to limit the stakes you're allowed to sit, a KOTH would naturally balance this out since 25/50 players are not going to battle 2/4 regs to get a table. They are sitting because its uncapped and there is no cost to opening those tables right now.

Facepalm.

Those regs take the tables because it isn't KotH and it's easy for them to do so.

If it was KotH, they wouldn't take the tables because they wouldn't bother defending them and people will know this.

Example: the party 5/10 tables are very lucrative to have. I'm fairly certain I could take them if I wanted to, I just don't bother because I have higher action most of the time. If they weren't KotH or a softer KotH I'd take those tables always/more often. This doesn't only apply to me, the guys that have the tables most of the time don't really battle 25/50 (one of them started to I guess)

Yeah this is a great explanation, I've also explained multiple times in this thread why having looser KotH lower is better than having a table cap.

facepalm? really?

it's hypothetical obviously, but i'd say lower stakes players are more likely to just flat out avoid higher stakes regs when battling for a table in KOTH at lower stakes (i know that would be my inclination anyway).

with action so dry that KOTH is needed, i think plenty HS regs will find the time to defend tables at stakes they currently sit at anyway (which have a higher "value" to hold under KOTH).

it is an issue for low/mid stakes grinders like myself. the fact rbracco is arguing that there should be no table cap is more evidence to support my view.