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 08-27-2013, 04:27 AM   #176
BiggerBoots
adept
 
BiggerBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 741
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakedamus View Post
Nick,

Why don't you fly kanu and kaby out to your office sit down with them and come up with a solution would only take one day. they are both from the UK have been around for ages and if you read all their post on the issues they dont want the solution that would better for them (KOTH) as they are in the top tier of high stakes cash players in the world.


Really appreciate your efforts with the hu lobby problem, but these two option that you are provided are not good.

- Jakedamus85
+1
BiggerBoots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2013, 05:55 AM   #177
Sh@i'tan
old hand
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,908
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Option #1. Modified KotH is terrible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerStars Nick View Post
The top Heads Up player at $25/$50 NLHE has a personal issue with one of the top 10 players at this stake. As a result, the top player continually sits this player who plays the minimum number of hands required and then leaves the table. As a result, one of the historically better players at this limit is required to move down due to a personal conflict.

Is something like this likely and/or necessarily a bad outcome? If not, does this become abusive if multiple people have an agreement to always sit a certain person in order to drive him away from that game type?

No it is not a bad outcome. No. If you have a problem with multiple people always sitting you get better so they stop. Simple.


Quote:
We do not typically heavily weigh the concerns of those who aggressively engage in opponent selection when making decisions about offerings or feature changes, and this is not going to change in the near future.
This is what you posted Nick. So I don't understand why are coming to this forum and asking winning hu regulars what they would like to see. They are all aggressively engaging in opponent selection. Please point out a single regular who will never deny action to someone else posting in this thread? Kardnel actually made quite a few good points in the last thread. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that people who sit at stakes where they deny action to every single regular come to this forum and complain about not being able to get action. Bumhunters-in-denial want you to get rid of/reduce the "pure" bumhunters so they get a greater percentage of the fish.

The purpose of making changes is so that people who want to play competitive games recreationally can be guaranteed action. Please do not implement changes that don't guarantee me a match in <30 seconds of going to the hu lobby. I want to be able to be playing games where I'm not losing >2x my 6m hourly. There are quite a few people like me who would want to play poker for fun in games where they're not losing that much more than their playing hourly. How you keep ignoring this group I have no idea. You should have multiple classifications of "recreational players" the net depositors and those that win money at other forms of poker. I highly doubt the net depositing fish would be more valuable if you properly fixed the lobby.

Sauce is right here

Quote:
The driver of the system is action with rec players; because this action is so valuable, regulars are willing to play many hands against each other for every hand they get to play hu with a rec player.
or I would argue for you to ban net depositors from ever playing hu. Precedent has been set and other sites are considering out right banning hu tables.

The idea of 25 people who can deny me action when I try to find a game is absurd. Please do not do that which is what option 2 would do.

Kanu point #4 is right. You shouldn't make changes to nl50-nl100. nl200+400 are debatable.
Sh@i'tan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2013, 06:31 AM   #178
Catchx
stranger
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 12
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakedamus View Post
Nick,

Why don't you fly kanu and kaby out to your office sit down with them and come up with a solution would only take one day. they are both from the UK have been around for ages and if you read all their post on the issues they dont want the solution that would better for them (KOTH) as they are in the top tier of high stakes cash players in the world.


Really appreciate your efforts with the hu lobby problem, but these two option that you are provided are not good.

- Jakedamus85
+1
Catchx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2013, 08:06 AM   #179
CoronalDischarge
grinder
 
CoronalDischarge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Less post more play
Posts: 547
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakedamus View Post
Nick,

Why don't you fly kanu and kaby out to your office sit down with them and come up with a solution would only take one day. they are both from the UK have been around for ages and if you read all their post on the issues they dont want the solution that would better for them (KOTH) as they are in the top tier of high stakes cash players in the world.


Really appreciate your efforts with the hu lobby problem, but these two option that you are provided are not good.

- Jakedamus85
+1
CoronalDischarge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2013, 08:12 AM   #180
nickname
journeyman
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 375
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

o my god i am not even sure how pokerstars can even consider option 1.
a penalty as a number of big blinds calculated by the remaining hands that needed to be played is the exact opposite of transparency. Its also inherently against the fact that we are playing a cash game, in which nature it is that a player can join and quit a game whenever he likes to. (the dealing sets of 2 hands thing to prevent grimming is a great idea though)
So what if someone loses his stack, does he have to reload and play for the remaining number of hands to not be penalised?
what if i have my roll on my table lose it and quit the game within the 20 hands? do i get a penalty on future deposits?
If no, why not, the other player has obviously a right on the remaining hands and therefore is entitled to the remaining blinds. If yes, what the fok, noone will deposit to play heads up again.
this is just so wrong. if you want to play a fixed number of hands with someone there is always the possibility of a sngo. there is no place for something like that in a cash game.

not even speaking of all the metagame and the handcounting to 20 that will go on. this will definately not be an option where players are just playing poker as you intend.


regarding the "recreational players dont care against whom they play". this is not true. now they obviously dont care as much as someone here on these forums but believe it or not most of them still play poker to try to win money. if only the worlds best players are visible in the lobby, not only would recs lose their money pretty fast but they would also know that they have to play against the absolute best players at these stakes. (if the system is transparent and communicated well). I cant imagine, even for the most recreational player that they want to play against the best all the time, maybe sometimes, but definately not always. Its basically advertising that if u choose to play in this game you stand no chance, which in turn will make them play even less heads up.

while i dont like both of the proposed versions i still appreciate the work and the idea that something needs to change.

regardless of any "solution" you might choose its also pretty clear that you also have to make adjustments to the rake structure at lower stakes. when you take any sort of table selection out of the equation the lower stakes will be close to unbeatable (which, looking at plo zoom, you probably dont care about though).
nickname is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2013, 11:10 AM   #181
MadeInPolanD
adept
 
MadeInPolanD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Warsaw
Posts: 986
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

If there's an angle its gonna be exploited. It's not kindergarten, it's all about money and people here live from extracting value.

In both "solutions" so many angles i dont wanna even start...

#1
Forcing recreational players to play and if they leave too early taking their money - terrible, terrible...
Whoever came up with this should be fired immediately.

#2
And the amount of possibilities to "crowd" the visible tables so that my table is visible, playing slow like in DoN ( in the past ), group of regs not playing each other, targeting particular player, SO MANY POSSIBILITIES! It's gonna be fun!


If you're not gonna double the size of your company to control all the dark areas that are really not controlable, then i suggest you leave the HU lobby alone.

Last edited by MadeInPolanD; 08-27-2013 at 11:35 AM.
MadeInPolanD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2013, 01:02 PM   #182
Caofa
centurion
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 102
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kardnel View Post
Adding HU chat would allow regs to quickly find each other when they want to play other regs. Right now a common complaint is that regs simply cannot find action against *anyone*. So the problem must be that these people just can't find each other out of a huge lobby. They could say, "LF 4 table match X stake, come to table Y" and play each other quickly and easily. That solves another problem that gets talked about when people argue against the current lobby system.

1. People finding easy matches via chat instead of wading through several tables
2. Only displaying X tables in the lobby with an expand button to get rid of clutter

That eliminates the two actual problems with the HU lobby right now. That completes the task without arbitrary money redistribution.
+1

this sounds pretty simple to implement and certainly will help out solving the major problem. Maybe won't solve it by itself, but allied to potencial others solutions it can be really helpfull
Caofa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2013, 02:36 PM   #183
Jamsym2
journeyman
 
Jamsym2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Stealin Yo Blinds
Posts: 298
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Everything Kanu has said looks good to me.
Jamsym2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2013, 06:22 PM   #184
BackBlood
adept
 
BackBlood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 787
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

I pick option 2.

It still favours getting better yet helps people who suck at poker still get action which is good for fish too since they lose less frequently, and lose less absolute amount in any given session.
BackBlood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2013, 10:40 PM   #185
HybridTft
centurion
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 133
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

KOTH please, let all these bumhunters go down to the levels they can beat. Thank god stars is finally doing something
HybridTft is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2013, 11:34 PM   #186
bighusla
old hand
 
bighusla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,413
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Option #1 is by far the best option and it's not even close. Poker is not a democracy no one has a "right" to play fish at any stake in which he chooses. Reading some of the comments in this thread some written by some of the better players in the game makes me cringe. Why are you guys lobbying for weak reg rights? This is poker. Poker is a very competitive game not some charity. If you can't beat a player/players you should make it your goal to be as good or better then this player/players by using the abundance of resources available such as coaching sites, hand history reviews, study groups, poker books...etc There is no excuse why you cannot become as good or even better then anyone who challenges you and I believe that PokerStars needs to choose the option that they believe will generate the most action and not be too concerned with "weak regs rights".
bighusla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 02:01 AM   #187
Sh@i'tan
old hand
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,908
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

It really is ridiculous. The fact that option 2 is on the table is unbelievable to me. Forget about the people who are actually arguing for it.

I really want to rant about Stars inviting people to players meetings who only care about protecting their hourly or increasing their hourly. They don't matter to you stars nor do they represent the interests of the players who do matter to you. I will keep this on topic though.


The idea of catering to "weak regulars" is because in kanu's opinion that system will create more rake for stars then turning hunlhe into pure competitive gaming. This is a debatable position. I am not convinced he is right. It's definitely better for the players at top that more people could move up the stakes and more weak regulars are able to seat. Does this result in more rake though? I don't know. We wouldn't be able to have legitimate debate on this with various forum members either because as poker players have proven logic goes out the window when they are arguing for what they consider is best for their own bottom line.


A yes or no question Kanu- are you okay with stars drastically increasing the rake at nl1k+ hu tables?
nl1k-$1
nl2k-$2
nl5k-$3
nl10k-$4
nl20k-$5

Quote:
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.
There needs to be a way to make sure regulars who are not the best can still play each other sure. Making it so only top 3 at each stake can play anyone is not good.

Some type of challenge lobby only open to non-net depositors should be made. You cant be letting weak regulars get net depositors action instead of the best players no way. Making it so the best has to share fish lowers the incentive to battle regulars. I see it as leading to less rake for stars if you lower the incentive to become the best. Your position is im wrong. Care to convince me?

Quote:
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.
This is the point. If you cant handle the action you need to get out of the lobby. There better not be a lengthy time delay. I want near instant action when I decide to play.

Quote:
. 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.
If you are the #3 hu player in the world you can make a ridiculous amount of money playing non hu games. So #3 in the world can make more money per hour playing in non-hu games than what he loses to #2 in the world but he will never battle him to try to get better/take his spot. I don't think this is true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TooCuriousso1 View Post
fwiw i play just about as many reg matches as almost any1 itt and i keep $0 on the only site that has HU zoom. i cashed out when they did that. hated it. and zoom is just so much inferior to a proper soft/tierd koth setup imo.

2 yes or no questions.

1) have you ever sold action or been staked to bumhunt at stakes you were not properly rolled for?
2) have you ever bought action, staked, or offered to stake anyone for stakes they were not properly rolled for?
Sh@i'tan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 03:38 AM   #188
ranka
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ranka's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sinned
Posts: 7,491
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by pontylad View Post
It's really difficult to believe that stars has any interest in solving "bumhunting" at hu when they show such a total disregard to scripting and all the other problems at 6m/fr. Just seems really strange to concentrate on an area of poker that affects a relatively small proportion of the poker playing population.

But agree with capping tables none the less.
LOL

HUSNG players say: leave HUNSG-s alone, fix HU cashgame lobbies first.
HU CG players say: leave HU CG alone, and fix 6m/FR games
6m/FR player say: leave 6m/FR alone, and fix PLO rake

etc
ranka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 06:38 AM   #189
purrretrog
veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Embracing the yolo
Posts: 2,229
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

sorry for the derail.. but @ sh@i'tan: what on earth does your "2 yes or no questions" have to do with your TC quote?
purrretrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 07:03 AM   #190
Kanu
adept
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 754
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sh@i'tan View Post
It really is ridiculous. The fact that option 2 is on the table is unbelievable to me. Forget about the people who are actually arguing for it.

I really want to rant about Stars inviting people to players meetings who only care about protecting their hourly or increasing their hourly. They don't matter to you stars nor do they represent the interests of the players who do matter to you. I will keep this on topic though.


The idea of catering to "weak regulars" is because in kanu's opinion that system will create more rake for stars then turning hunlhe into pure competitive gaming. This is a debatable position. I am not convinced he is right. It's definitely better for the players at top that more people could move up the stakes and more weak regulars are able to seat. Does this result in more rake though? I don't know. We wouldn't be able to have legitimate debate on this with various forum members either because as poker players have proven logic goes out the window when they are arguing for what they consider is best for their own bottom line.


A yes or no question Kanu- are you okay with stars drastically increasing the rake at nl1k+ hu tables?
nl1k-$1
nl2k-$2
nl5k-$3
nl10k-$4
nl20k-$5

Obviously don't want stars to drastically increase the rake, weird question. Not sure what you are getting at here. Perhaps that you think I am claiming to be trying to maximise the rake gained by pokerstars when actually i'm not? I believe that the players and stars' interests align on the issue of the HU tables because I think the more action that goes on, the better it is for both parties. Therefore I talk about maximising the rake for stars as a good thing purely when they are doing this by increasing the amount of action.

There needs to be a way to make sure regulars who are not the best can still play each other sure. Making it so only top 3 at each stake can play anyone is not good.

Some type of challenge lobby only open to non-net depositors should be made. You cant be letting weak regulars get net depositors action instead of the best players no way. Making it so the best has to share fish lowers the incentive to battle regulars. I see it as leading to less rake for stars if you lower the incentive to become the best. Your position is im wrong. Care to convince me?

It depends on the size of the player pool I think. Let's take a lower limit where there are 100 players wanting to be able to sit. If only the best player gets to sit and get fish action then there are likely only 3-5 players with a realistic chance of being that best player any time soon. If there are 15 players able to sit with a chance of fish action then there are probably 40-50 players with a realistic chance of getting in the top 15 some time soon so I would expect there to be much more action in the second scenario. On top of that, in the second scenario the best players at a limit are much more incentivised to try to move up since a lot of the action will go on below them. In the first scenario, the best players will be more concerned with locking out the lobby at the limit they are at and moving up will be much rarer.

This is the point. If you cant handle the action you need to get out of the lobby. There better not be a lengthy time delay. I want near instant action when I decide to play.

Again this probably varies by stake. At low limits where you could get action all the time then you could maybe argue this. If there are 5 25/50 tables and none of the other guys sitting want to play me then I am supposed to wait around all day hoping someone sits so that I can "handle the action" when someone does? Seems reasonable that I would play something else while waiting.

If you are the #3 hu player in the world you can make a ridiculous amount of money playing non hu games. So #3 in the world can make more money per hour playing in non-hu games than what he loses to #2 in the world but he will never battle him to try to get better/take his spot. I don't think this is true.

That is likely not true, but creating action sometimes between these 2 players doesn't constitute great action going on at a limit. If there are plenty of people willing to play other regulars at a limit if it means that they have a chance at fish action as well then it seems silly to deny them the opportunity in favour of having these 2 guys play sometimes from the perspective of trying to get a lot of HU matches going on.


2 yes or no questions.

1) have you ever sold action or been staked to bumhunt at stakes you were not properly rolled for?
2) have you ever bought action, staked, or offered to stake anyone for stakes they were not properly rolled for?
Your questions to him are largely counterproductive and pretty irrelevant to any point I can imagine you making. It is perfectly reasonable to want a lobby which encourages action but given that there isn't one and that almost everyone else is bumhunting above their normal stakes, to do so yourself. If you were planning to accuse him of hypocrisy or rubbish any points he made by saying "but you bumhunt sometimes too!!" then please don't bother, it's irrelevant and unhelpful to the discussion.
Kanu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 07:17 AM   #191
Sh@i'tan
old hand
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,908
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

The first question was supposed to be would you be ok if they increased it to decrease it at lower.

nl50-30bb
nl100-22bb
nl200-10bb
nl400-6bb

Rake paid for me this year per 100 hands. 99% v regs.

I don't see how not being expected to handle 1 table is a reasonable argument against option #1. Yes if you can't play 1 table don't wait.

Maybe I'm underestimating the edge between #3 to #2. >3bb?



re:tc he brings up that he plays more reg matches than anyone itt wen bringing up his opinion on hu zoom. why is that relevant to the point he was making?
Sh@i'tan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 07:37 AM   #192
Kanu
adept
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 754
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sh@i'tan View Post
The first question was supposed to be would you be ok if they increased it to decrease it at lower.

nl50-30bb
nl100-22bb
nl200-10bb
nl400-6bb

Rake paid for me this year per 100 hands. 99% v regs.

The rake is too high at low stakes imo since games continue to get tougher. That being said, if you want to swap your rake level and softness of games for mine I will obv snap-call. It is still a lot harder to beat high stakes than low stakes so I don't think raising rake at high stakes is the answer.

I don't see how not being expected to handle 1 table is a reasonable argument against option #1. Yes if you can't play 1 table don't wait.

In my example I was sitting at multiple limits and someone was sitting with me at all of them at the same time. Also, I have a maximum number of tables I am comfortable with. Clearly adding 1 table on to that will mean I have more than I am comfortable with. It's not so hard to understand. The point I made was that I am willing to play, I just need time to sitout of my other games. I'm not sure why you are demanding absolutely instant games, seems very weird. If ever I sit with anyone or they sit with me and whoever gets sat with says "hang on, give me 2 mins to quit other tables" then that is obviously completely fine and nobody has ever had a problem with that. I don't know what sort of unreasonable person would kick up a fuss about this. You I guess!

Maybe I'm underestimating the edge between #3 to #2. >3bb?

No clue why you are asking this/what relevance it has sorry. Also there is clearly a different answer to your question for any different stake level/moment in time.

re:tc he brings up that he plays more reg matches than anyone itt wen bringing up his opinion on hu zoom. why is that relevant to the point he was making?

He actually says "fwiw i play just about as many reg matches as almost any1 itt" and it is relevant because he is saying that as someone who plays a lot of reg matches, he wouldn't play HU Zoom. Some people may think that only bumhunters would be against HU Zoom and he is pointing out that this isn't the case.
Kanu
Kanu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 08:35 AM   #193
kabyz
grinder
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 483
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by bighusla View Post
Why are you guys lobbying for weak reg rights?
Because I think that when fish have to play the best all the time they will enjoy poker less and deposit less.
kabyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 11:00 AM   #194
BackBlood
adept
 
BackBlood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 787
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Alot of people are forgetting that poker isn't just a game of skill.

Its a medium for a lot of people to relax and gamble. By playing the best you lose that attraction to alot of people, because the game becomes alot more competitive and stressful. We need a middle ground where competiveness thrives for people who want that but for people who just want a bit of fun they shouldnt be forced to play the best.

Option 2 provides that.

Last edited by BackBlood; 08-28-2013 at 11:28 AM.
BackBlood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 12:45 PM   #195
Kanu
adept
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 754
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

1 thing which a perfect solution would include would be the possibility for 2 recreational players to play each other. It's quite difficult to do because obviously if 1 of them was ever open sitting they would instantly get joined by a reg but I think it would be good overall if it were possible. Doesn't seem possible within the boundaries of either Option 1 or Option 2 though so probably not worth discussing in detail atm.
Kanu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 01:14 PM   #196
bighusla
old hand
 
bighusla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,413
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by kabyz View Post
Because I think that when fish have to play the best all the time they will enjoy poker less and deposit less.
i don't think so, The 1st option is very similar to the lobby system that has been around in husngs for years and as husngs has continued to become increasingly popular every year while hu cash has continued to die, now to the point where action between the 2 games isn't even comparable any more.

Recreational players don't like seeing hundreds of players sitting and no games running, recreational players like seeing players playing one another and showing how much money can be made. I know that when I was a fish what got me into hu was railing durrr, ivey, omgclayaiken...etc and seeing them battle it out for so much money inspired me to start playing hu.
bighusla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 01:56 PM   #197
sharpyetblunt
Pooh-Bah
 
sharpyetblunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 3,606
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

What you should do is simply have some sort of signifier next to a persons name that they are a bumhunter. For people to lose it they have to play other people who are bumhunters or a higher quality reg as decided by your categories.

If a fish knows the person they sit down with only targets weaker players then they will probably be a bit miffed about being considered a mark and choose the people with no bumhunter tag. This way you give the choice to the recreational player. If people who have a tag realise they are getting less action because of it then they can play x no. of hands to get rid of it. Its a way to penalise a certain group who dont play into playing while giving the rec players the choice of who they want to play.
sharpyetblunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 02:54 PM   #198
ranka
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ranka's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sinned
Posts: 7,491
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by bighusla View Post
Option #1 is by far the best option and it's not even close. Poker is not a democracy no one has a "right" to play fish at any stake in which he chooses. Reading some of the comments in this thread some written by some of the better players in the game makes me cringe. Why are you guys lobbying for weak reg rights? This is poker. Poker is a very competitive game not some charity. If you can't beat a player/players you should make it your goal to be as good or better then this player/players by using the abundance of resources available such as coaching sites, hand history reviews, study groups, poker books...etc There is no excuse why you cannot become as good or even better then anyone who challenges you and I believe that PokerStars needs to choose the option that they believe will generate the most action and not be too concerned with "weak regs rights".
Cant agree more.

EDIT: should be only one category - poker player. like 4-5 years ago. every change was made to make games more fun for players, not for this and this and this type of player.

also there isnt category like "weak" or "good" player. these categories are because people can make money that way. everyone can become good or even top player, or be weak player - depends how he works on his game and how motivated he is.
ranka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 03:23 PM   #199
ceegee
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ceegee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Last, Best Hope of Western Stud
Posts: 6,424
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Is there a set date this is happening?
ceegee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 03:34 PM   #200
Kardnel
veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,571
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
everyone can become good or even top player
This is not how a zero sum game works. If the lobby ends up having an effective 10 seats but 30 regs wanted to sit and wait game then it doesn't matter how much the group improves overall or how any individual in that group increases in skill. Only 10 guys will still be able to play (profitably) at a given time.

You're making it sound like everyone can beat the game still if they just do their EV calcs and game theory study enough. It just isn't true, though.
Kardnel 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 10:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online