Please don't encourage him.

He's saying three things:

1. Basically that any new system would be harmful. (Many are concerned about this.)

2. That's it's done as a money-grab/other evil SPECTRE/AMAYA reason (nonsense.)

3. A LOT of other noise and nonsense.

Stop all of this wild speculation Pokie. It is detracting from any helpful conversation. Your mind is a kid's playground.

This is how you should post your concern;

"I'm worried that the proposed system will mean being forced to accept a seat and play at a bad table, or if you don't you get punished and pushed down the waiting list, is really not good at any stakes and any game format. There is no freedom of play there at all."

To which I would reply:

"Good point, but it isn't intended to work like that. We would still have the opportunity to table select and decline plenty of seats and it won't harm your score. We even talked about such things how multi-tablers playing X tables could decline further more."

Do you see the difference? How you currently do things involves you making up shlt and passing it off as fact, taking the conversation on a detour, and detracting from any progress being made. The second option enables you to talk about what you think could happen and have them addressed.

How on earth did this not get discussed during the hours of meetings?

(I believe the reason is because the client can still be "pinged" by software and have information passed back on tables even if the user himself can't observe them. This is how sites can datamine Zoom hands, for example)

I don't know what stage Stars' discussion is at regarding any possible changes, but I will again mention to Pokerstars Chris how players at SSFR are happy generally with how things are right now.

If I'm wrong, and some players do want these changes then please speak out. Likewise, if you are happy currently, and haven't commented yet, perhaps do so now. This way we SSFR players can get a clear view of how everyone feels.

I shall later ask Chris to take a look at this thread. Unfortunately he'll have to wade through a lot of shlt but at least he can hopefully get a feel for players' concerns, even though not much constructive has been mentioned.

We can do a writeup of each reg, including stakes played, how he feels. There is only like max30 of us. Anyways that post
If u guys want i can organize this
ALL ANSWERS WOULD BE PUBLIC

This is a brilliant idea, I like this very much.

Cool, go ahead.

*I would again stress to everyone; do not go off on a Pokie-tangent about a Stars money grab, doomswitch, or alien abductions. Just stick to a precise, constructive reason for your thoughts and any concerns.*

The main obstacle to having this at higher stakes or six max games or a combo of both is that it makes things confusing for players especially the Rec players who like to play a bunch of different games.

The changes need to be universal to avoid complication.

Haven't seen a problem with micro/ssnl lobby. I like it as it is for sure.

The R problem was the only problem that needed adressing? try to get a session going at 2/4+ without a strong script and a good ping

I've barely read the discussion and have no opinion on the matter yet but I'm sure of one thing, if something can be done to get rid of seating scripts it should be done, and I say this while opening my script to try and play some pokers

Dont change anything, maybe dont alow more than 5 tables with 1 player to open- end that sexyangeline 24x1table thing

+1, that half wit needs to take a hike.

Yes. Lets assume it's needed at 2/4+.

Yes, I mentioned this at the meeting.

My thoughts are that SSFR players want to see:

1. A cap on the number of tables that an individual can sit at alone.

2. More effective punishment for grimming. (I hear several regs complain that certain other regs still do it, despite being reported.)

3. ????

OK guys, so i am thinking in something similar shape or form, anything that needs to be added?

-screenname/2p2: bigacsiga/bigacsiga
-stakes: 200FR, 400FR, 600FR
-hands/month: 80-100k
-oppinion if starting games needs changing: i think that since the lion share of my tables come from waitlists, it is possible for everyone to get enough quality tables at these stakes without a problem.
grimming is the biggest issue that needs to be addressed at MSNL FR

is that format good, or is there something that MUST be added? if you guys agree on the format will start collecting the data,i will post how

1.) I may be wrong about this but I think that at $200NL+ only one spare table spawns so that players can not sit out at loads of tables. However at $100NL this does not happen and many tables stay in the lobby often with just one player sat out, often SexyAngeline. It makes the lobby look untidy and it slows down the starting of games. So basically only $100NL and below need changes in this aspect.

2.) Yes, so long as it is clear that the player has done it deliberately and repeatedly.

3.) Whatever solution that is bought into play needs to be uncomplicated and with the option of it being changed back if after testing it, people aren't keen still.

Don't really play on Stars anymore, but I have a waitlist idea: the probably a player gets called to the game is proportional to the time he spends on the waitlist.

Bump. Recently started doing a lot of stretches in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Pain-Free-Revo.../dp/0553379887

It's done great things for my back and knees. I highly recommend it to everyone.

This would reward players who decline seats though; the longer they hang around turning down tables, the more choice they would have.

I asked him and this is exactly what happened and he's now turned the option to be asked to post

It's not that uncommon for a reg to not even realize this is an option, I'm sure there are regs in this thread that played for ages only later to discover they could in fact do this

^I stand corrected. One experienced reg played without having it checked.

No it doesn't.


Also Ron basically hit the nail on the head.

There's not much point surveying all the regs that post here... almost every table starter is going to say the changes are good... almost every scripter is going to say the changes are bad.

Personally I think a change should be made but am unsure if this is the one that is needed. Just banning scripts is the obvious answer but i suppose it still leaves a fastest trigger finger = 1st approach.

Global waitlists always worked fine on ftp so i really don't see it being a huge issue on stars. So long as fish can get in a game quickly enough (which seems they will be able too) then the change won't be worse for poker. It'll be worse for a small subset of players (scripters) and better for everyone else.

Even people that just waitlist tables will be better off. Trying to get near the top of a waitlist at 600 6m is nearly impossible vs the scripts... a fish sits down, the seats fill and there are instantly 10 people on the waiting list. the change should be a positive for a far larger majority of the player pool than the minority. So yeah, **** them. Tbh i don't think it'll really affect table starters that much... most guys that start tables are going to keep doing the same regardless of any changes.

I'm pretty sure it will and here's why I think so:

Let's look at how it will likely effect me. I will have to play a bit of 'reg-only' volume now, whereas before virtually all of my volume had a fish at the table. This will decrease my win rate.

Now let's look at you. At the moment you try and start tables and are happy to play against pretty much anyone. The odd reg plays with you, swapping blinds and trying to get games going. Most regs that are worse than you are not giving you action and most regs that are better than you are also not giving you action, however you do get some reg-on-reg action at the moment, but still the vast majority of your volume will take place with a fish at the table.

Under the changes, you will still try and start tables like normal, only this time the rest of the reg pool will be forced into giving you more action than they currently do, (so as to get seats at the tables and to have a good 'waiting list' score), and this hurts you because you will be forced into playing a higher proportion of 'reg-only' volume compared to what you do at the moment since the number of fish available stays the same, and so your win rate will also suffer.

You see, whenever you are starting tables and regs are denying you action, they are helping not only themselves but they are also helping you by doing so, as they are not forcing you to play -EV volume against them. Even if you think you have an edge on another reg, it doesn't really make much sense to play them if you believe that you are only slightly better.

Obviously if I am wrong, please tell me why, as this is just my opinion and I'm not aware of every single facet of the situation, I'm just trying to think about it on an intuitive level.

I personally don't see the problem with the fastest finger first approach, and this is because in practice it doesn't often come down to the fastest finger and instead whoever happens to be watching the lobby at the right time gets the seats, and this will be fairly random in terms of who gets the seats each time.

For instance, any reg that happens to be involved in a big pot at the time that a fish sits at an empty table, will be too distracted to sit the new fish, even if that reg happens to have the fastest trigger finger when all else is equal.

Also, all regs that have filled their quota of tables at that moment in time are not looking for any new tables, so at any one particular period of time it is only a handful of regs that are actually looking to add an extra table and whom are vying over that new fish.

So in my opinion the fastest finger first method seems to pretty much self-regulate and share the fish out fairly evenly based on each regular player's individual 'session circumstances' at the precise time a new fish happens to sit; just like what happened before seating scripts were introduced.

At stakes where there is very little action, I can see your concerns though, so it is not an easy situation to get right, but maybe that is just something that comes with the territory when there is a lack of fish. If there is literally at best only ever one or two tables that run, seating in a fair manner may be unrealistic, with the only ideal solution being more fish and more tables running at that stake to keep everyone who plays at that level happy.

Why? Based on what reasoning?

I have given a brief outline of how the proposed lobby could work, and your imagination goes wild again as if you can predict all the implications of such a system.

However, what you've just said is pretty much a concern that I have already mentioned to the group. My reasoning was that with fish joining the GWL, it's likely that there would be less uniform ratio of reg:fish at each table, as 2 or 3 fish could be offered seats at the same table. So, in theory instead of a hypothetical 8:1 ratio across the board, you would have 7:2, 9:0, 9:0, 6:3, 9:0, 9:0, 9:0, etc. Of course the 9:0 tables would break/wouldn't form, resulting in juicier tables but far less of them.

However, Chris and Alex Millar pointed out the glaring mistake I had made, namely that fish are not likely to be joining the GWL, and rather would sit down at a table or hit the "Play Now" button. Assuming this is correct, and the GWL is near all reg-filled, then I think the table make-up should be similar to how it is now.

But it's very hard to know exactly how it will work. And this is precisely why you need to use sound reasoning to state your concerns, rather than your 100 mile-an-hour-guesswork-passed-of-as-fact

Fastest finger is fine imo.