I was just thinking this through when something occured to me. How would any of you feel if you went to your local supermarket to buy some biscuits and found out that they now only stock one brand because the outsold the other brands significantly?
Annoyed is my guess because your options and choices have been taken away from you. This may even be the brand you wanted but now you have had your power of choice removed from you. This is how i see this situation. If you remove HU tables then you remove choice from the people wishing to play. Limiting the choices and options of someone is never a good thing, and more choice (up to a limit of course) is better.
I personally dont play HU for my own reasons and i am happy about this. I am also happy about the fact that if i wanted to i have the choice to do so.
In the end who are any of us to limit the choices and options of others just because of our own personal feelings about them.
doesn't matter hu or 6 max people just chase the easy money
just the way poker is
And if any poker player says otherwise then your a liar if you identify the spot at the table you go after them, you all do it. The weak will be chased and devoured.
I feel quite insulted when a poker player state's they don't bum hunt, subconsiously we all do it.
Im always open about the concept that if you wanna make money at anything in life you have to look for people spending money. Poker is no different.
Profitable players who say they dont bum hunt are liars or dillusional. This is especially true to any reg on sky as the only reason a reg would play on sky is that it is the softest site out there. Although its no where near as soft as it used to be.
As for hu, the problem is the ridiculous looking lobby. If you limit hu tables to 2 per person the chance of catching a player who is spending money is still the same. But the lobby is a lot better looking.
Set up a system where you can create your own room from 2-10 seats
and invite your friends to play
I'm fed up trying to set up a game with mates cos as soon asyou set up a table someone else dives in and you have to open up another table to play the persons you intended to play
I must have read your initial post about 5 times now, and I still have no idea what you're trying to get across.
Players like you are now holding Skypoker back. You want Skypoker to stay as it is because you think its soft.
How am I holding Sky back? I don't want Sky to 'stay as it is'. I want it to evolve with the competition, which is the main reason I brought attention to this issue. 6max games would no doubt get harder if HU was abolished, so how does this benefit me, exactly? Even so, I relish competition. Substantiate your claims. Correcting you constantly is tedious and extremely boring.
Increase the numbers and you wont like it. by OHIMGOOD
I care deeply about the longevity of online poker, and I'll lobby for anything that'll benefit the poker community as a whole. Do you see me whining about the lack of Rake Races here on Sky? Complaining about the cuts to Priority Club, or how the new C4P/Rewards system hurts regs like me, whilst benefitting recreational players? No. Objectivity. I recommend it.
'Rent a table' ?
Pay an hours worth of rake up front to get a table for an hour, (activated from when sum1 else joins)
Can leave or top up at anytime..........
any1 can join, good/bad/ugly.
U can play, or leave and sacrifice ur rent by DOHHHHHHH
While I'm a HUGE fan of the ol' "every idea's a good idea!"... This one just wouldn't fly man. So many problems introducing a format like this. Will elaborate if asked to do so.
Are HU Cash tables not pointless due to the Rake?
After an hour if both players won the exact same amount, they would be down a fortune. by LARSON7
Word from the wise, avoid double negatives dude. Your question is ambiguous, and potentially confusing. I guess we're trying to discuss how the relatively speaking high rake in HU games, leaves little room for players with a decent edge to emerge winners? Long story short, this is why you'll rarely see regs play each other HU. Small edge - Rake = Not worth playing (to most HU regs) Lambert180 said it best.
why cant the cash hu table spawn like the husng tables?
if a new table was spawned only when the others were filled would that not force people to play for the right to sit the lobby?
cheers, TEDDY by TeddyBloat
Sadly, this wouldn't force regs to play each other. It would be a manic game of 'Musical Chairs', regs rushing to try and be the first to get on the only spawned-in tables, waiting for recreational players to sit. Knowing the structure, the strongest HU players in a given player pool would play anyone. Eventually, the weaker regs would learn to leave as soon as the best HU player sat-down, resulting in an extremely unfair system whereby 1 player could occupy all spawned tables. In an Alpha-Male esque dominance of the only spawned tables, the best HU player would get to play all the recs themselves, every time. Good idea, just not one that would work in this instance I'm afraid. Shocking explanation ik, it's 4:30am. Apologies.
I was just thinking this through when something occured to me. How would any of you feel if you went to your local supermarket to buy some biscuits and found out that they now only stock one brand because the outsold the other brands significantly?
Annoyed is my guess because your options and choices have been taken away from you. This may even be the brand you wanted but now you have had your power of choice removed from you. This is how i see this situation. If you remove HU tables then you remove choice from the people wishing to play. Limiting the choices and options of someone is never a good thing, and more choice (up to a limit of course) is better.
I personally dont play HU for my own reasons and i am happy about this. I am also happy about the fact that if i wanted to i have the choice to do so.
In the end who are any of us to limit the choices and options of others just because of our own personal feelings about them. by Talon
The analogy here is extremely poor, as it fails to take into consider the negatives of 'offering your favourite biscuits'. It would work if we were referring to the lack of Full-Ring tables on the site, sure. There are limited noticable repercusions to removing these tables in favour of a strictly 6max format. The HU tables are completely different, however. Games rarely run resulting in a small intake of rake for the site, players refuse to play one another, the weaker competition are allowed to be winning players using "game selection", bumhunting is bad for the longevity of the game AND pokers image. This issue isn't purely a matter of personal opinion, but objective forethought, as how to benefit the poker economy and community. If your argument is strung up on limitations, you'd have to address every other form of poker that isn't currently offered on Sky. Do variations deserve a chance on Sky? Sure. Is HU one of them? Absolutely not.
doesn't matter hu or 6 max people just chase the easy money
just the way poker is
And if any poker player says otherwise then your a liar if you identify the spot at the table you go after them, you all do it.
Speak for yourself. Less wild, provocative generalisations please.
The weak will be chased and devoured.
I feel quite insulted when a poker player state's they don't bum hunt, subconsiously we all do it. by rancid
Which is the exact reason why I'm trying to press this issue and make people aware of the current problem w/HU online poker. HU games humiliate and alienate recreational players, while allowing outright terrible regs to 'game-select' so that they're a winning player at any given stake. Case in point, a vast majority of regs here could beat 100kNL HU if they only decided to play Guy Laliberte and refused to take action from anyone else.
Any profitable poker player is a bum hunter.
Im always open about the concept that if you wanna make money at anything in life you have to look for people spending money. Poker is no different.
Profitable players who say they dont bum hunt are liars or dillusional. This is especially true to any reg on sky as the only reason a reg would play on sky is that it is the softest site out there. Although its no where near as soft as it used to be.
As for hu, the problem is the ridiculous looking lobby. If you limit hu tables to 2 per person the chance of catching a player who is spending money is still the same. But the lobby is a lot better looking. by AJS4385
I've honestly not seen a post more wrong than this in a very long time. So many fallacious arguments I don't even know where to begin. Will tackle it tomorrow as it's already 5am. Absolutely appalled at your rationalisations, AJS. 'Disgusted' would be an understatement.
Why, in your opinion doesn't this (anonymous tables) fix the problem of bumhunting? by Jac35
It's demonstrably unsuccessful at eliminating bumhunting on other sites. Bumhunting for the most part isn't a reliant on realising familiar names of good opponents, HUD stats on prior competition, or notes on how they play. It's about sitting down with someone, playing a small number of hands, and deciding whether or not they're a rec, or a reg. Play as few as 20 hands of HU, and most people will already have a rough idea of your skill level. If you're 3beting frequently and with good consistant sizing. If you fold your bb a reasonable for a min-raise, prolly a reg. If you check-raise your semi-bluffs or show a capability for thin value bets, prolly a reg. etc etc the list could go on.
Anonymous tables fail because people can STILL game-select and instantly avoid regs.
Private rooms for the win! Set up a system where you can create your own room from 2-10 seats and invite your friends to play I'm fed up trying to set up a game with mates cos as soon asyou set up a table someone else dives in and you have to open up another table to play the persons you intended to play Posted by DUNMIDOSH
The post was probably in jest? But just in case it wasn't, Private rooms would be a disaster. Will expand on this if you'd wish me to do so, tomorrow.
See your point regarding table spawning. I guess with husng once someone sits your table you cannot instastand innit. I dont really understand why empty hu tables reduce liquidity. Is it because the bumhunters hoover-up weak players money in a short amount of time then refuse action in other forms of the game?
doesn't matter hu or 6 max people just chase the easy money
just the way poker is
And if any poker player says otherwise then your a liar if you identify the spot at the table you go after them, you all do it.
Speak for yourself. Less wild, provocative generalisations please.
The weak will be chased and devoured.
I feel quite insulted when a poker player state's they don't bum hunt, subconsiously we all do it. by rancid
Which is the exact reason why I'm trying to press this issue and make people aware of the current problem w/HU online poker. HU games humiliate and alienate recreational players, while allowing outright terrible regs to 'game-select' so that they're a winning player at any given stake. Case in point, a vast majority of regs here could beat 100kNL HU if they only decided to play Guy Laliberte and refused to take action from anyone else.
The problem is within poker Smit, it's just not HU. HU just makes it look unsavoury. If I told you their was a player at 5/10 shoving ATC every hand would you sit at that table. Well you would be mad not to sit wouldn't you. Why do poker players go and play weaker players from table selecing at nl10 through to businessman selecting in macou.
What your saying is it is unfair to the rec player who chooses to sit down at a hu table. Well I think they should have that choice. If someone wants to sit down and play HU then how does this affect you Smit.
What are the negative implaications for poker/ Sky and you if HU tables remain and bumhunting contnues. I don't think anyone can quantify that.
Is this just a self serving mission to get these recs on 6 max tables and take away the rec's option to sit at HU. So essentially everyone can take from the rec equally. I mean Smit we don't want these players to leave the site, so we want them on 6 max tables !
So what's in it for you Smit, you just want a share of the money by forcing them onto 6 max tables ?
O btw their is a player at 5/10 happy to get it with TPNK, anyone fancy joining this table ? Or you could join the other one with Style and all the other regs.
Most of the people who play poker, play it because they want to make some money (Whether they actually do or not is irrelevant). Someone's favourite game might be STTs, someone else Cash etc, but some people prefer to play HU. With HU, you obviously get to choose if you play another player or not. If they are better than you or of the same ability why would you want to play them?
How many people on this thread/poll would go and play £1/£2 or £2.50 / £5 HU cash games? Very few, so why does everyone care? To me it just stinks of the green eyed monster, seeing someone sat at a table for a few hours, then suddenly playing 1 person and making the amount of money it would take them a week at work to earn.
Players put money on the table knowing very well it's there to be won, if they want to play a high stakes HU player then that's their choice, I don't see why they should be told they can't choose thieir opponent, or even not be able to play HU at all.
I play on other sites aswell as SKY (naughty i know), and i see blaze poker being very popular on one of these sites, it has grown since its launch, it is a cash game where you can sit with 10/6/2 players, and after u fold/muck/win hand you go onto different table for the next hand, it is very quick form of cash, so notes need to be taken on players to have an edge, also only best to play when the pool for these is high (over 100 players) overwise you will be seated on tables that have same faces all the time.
I do not play cash hu, as feel i make profit in std hu games, i am small stakes player but a profitable 1 when playing (sports betting is my weakness lol).
Cash hu games are differnt kettle of fish to me, and feel if you are willing to sit on cash hu with £5, and do same with std hu game that cost £5 + 50p, i stand better chance of gaining profit longer term then would in cash (if you know what i mean)
The other thing i find very annoying is when no re-match is arranged, then u see other person on another table for same stake waiting for player to join them WHY??
Most of the people who play poker, play it because they want to make some money (Whether they actually do or not is irrelevant). Someone's favourite game might be STTs, someone else Cash etc, but some people prefer to play HU. With HU, you obviously get to choose if you play another player or not. If they are better than you or of the same ability why would you want to play them? How many people on this thread/poll would go and play £1/£2 or £2.50 / £5 HU cash games? Very few, so why does everyone care? To me it just stinks of the green eyed monster, seeing someone sat at a table for a few hours, then suddenly playing 1 person and making the amount of money it would take them a week at work to earn. Players put money on the table knowing very well it's there to be won, if they want to play a high stakes HU player then that's their choice, I don't see why they should be told they can't choose thieir opponent, or even not be able to play HU at all. Posted by FlashFlush
+1 - If sky were to remove HU then the people wanting to play this will just choose another site that does offer it. I don't personally ever play it but it's something i defo want to improve on and will be looking into in the future. Getting HU in a tourney is a rare thing for me unfortunately ha, but when i do get there i don't want to get run over so playing HU will help gain some experience. It doesn't really matter why people choose to play it, but having the choice to do so should be there.
You are never going to get rid of bumhunting totally. A bumhunter will sit a player as soon as they realise they are half competent. This could be as little as ten hands after villain raises every button and continuation bets.
Why remove them? what benefit would it bring to the site?
Hope this link is fair game, it only references DTD but that's talked about on here all the time. Anyway it's a blog by Rob Yong about the state of online poker (and it's decline)
Players will not change, operators need to change. But because of rake they do not want to change. Once you look at the games from a rec's perspective, no fun at all. You try sitting at ONE cash table of say nl20 or nl50. I have been doing it for a while latley and the games are not great. deffo in decline, specially if your a rec on a table with 5 multi tablers playing 12%. after a while your just gonna think sod this. Posted by rancid
No offence Rancid, but you do half talk some sheisse.
In Response to Re: Heads-up tables : No offence Rancid, but you do half talk some sheisse. Posted by Smitalos
O Smit you kinda let me down, was expecting a long winded argument with no valid points apart from making out your out for the good of poker when infact your only thinking about your own gains.
But if you want to be Sparticus, you can be
then OMG you have to agree with Galfond, not like he ain't abused online poker for like EVER!
It's amazing but when players have their win rate cut by better competition then suddenly they want to do something about the decline of poker. OMG there is no easy money left, OMG bring back 2007.
I find it all very laughable.
I love it how every poker player wants more recs playing, because that is what all this about. More recs coming into the game, more money for everyone.
lets not dress this up and make out we are doing this for the good of the recs.
You all want more recs playing and the game to last forever with great win rates.
In Response to Re: Heads-up tables : O Smit you kinda let me down, was expecting a long winded argument with no valid points apart from making out your out for the good of poker when infact your only thinking about your own gains. But if you want to be Sparticus, you can be then OMG you have to agree with Galfond, not like he ain't abused online poker for like EVER! It's amazing but when players have their win rate cut by better competition then suddenly they want to do something about the decline of poker. OMG there is no easy money left, OMG bring back 2007. I find it all very laughable. I love it how every poker player wants more recs playing, because that is what all this about. More recs coming into the game, more money for everyone. lets not dress this up and make out we are doing this for the good of the recs. You all want more recs playing and the game to last forever with great win rates. Posted by rancid
You take every rebutal personally, and rarely address points made by the opposition. (in this case, me)
It's left me nowhere to go but just deem our conversations a lost cause.
Your preconceptions, stubborn attitude and unwilling nature to discuss with those that disagree with you... ...is a recipe for some of the most tiresome posts I've seen here on Sky.
Please, PLEASE read your posts above. You assert many incorrect truths, use degrading generalisations, and patronise your opposition before dismissing their claims based on the fact that, "I'm right because you're wrong.".
Either we can trade ideas, learn from one another, and show the forum a different PoV for them to consider...
Or you can continue dictating opinion as fact in the face of logic and reasoned argument.
Comments
I was just thinking this through when something occured to me. How would any of you feel if you went to your local supermarket to buy some biscuits and found out that they now only stock one brand because the outsold the other brands significantly?
Annoyed is my guess because your options and choices have been taken away from you. This may even be the brand you wanted but now you have had your power of choice removed from you. This is how i see this situation. If you remove HU tables then you remove choice from the people wishing to play. Limiting the choices and options of someone is never a good thing, and more choice (up to a limit of course) is better.
I personally dont play HU for my own reasons and i am happy about this. I am also happy about the fact that if i wanted to i have the choice to do so.
In the end who are any of us to limit the choices and options of others just because of our own personal feelings about them.
just the way poker is
And if any poker player says otherwise then your a liar
if you identify the spot at the table you go after them, you all do it.
The weak will be chased and devoured.
I feel quite insulted when a poker player state's they don't bum hunt, subconsiously we all do it.
Im always open about the concept that if you wanna make money at anything in life you have to look for people spending money. Poker is no different.
Profitable players who say they dont bum hunt are liars or dillusional. This is especially true to any reg on sky as the only reason a reg would play on sky is that it is the softest site out there. Although its no where near as soft as it used to be.
As for hu, the problem is the ridiculous looking lobby. If you limit hu tables to 2 per person the chance of catching a player who is spending money is still the same. But the lobby is a lot better looking.
Substantiate your claims. Correcting you constantly is tedious and extremely boring. I care deeply about the longevity of online poker, and I'll lobby for anything that'll benefit the poker community as a whole.
Do you see me whining about the lack of Rake Races here on Sky? Complaining about the cuts to Priority Club, or how the new C4P/Rewards system hurts regs like me, whilst benefitting recreational players?
No.
Objectivity. I recommend it. While I'm a HUGE fan of the ol' "every idea's a good idea!"...
This one just wouldn't fly man. So many problems introducing a format like this. Will elaborate if asked to do so. Word from the wise, avoid double negatives dude. Your question is ambiguous, and potentially confusing.
I guess we're trying to discuss how the relatively speaking high rake in HU games, leaves little room for players with a decent edge to emerge winners?
Long story short, this is why you'll rarely see regs play each other HU. Small edge - Rake = Not worth playing (to most HU regs)
Lambert180 said it best.
Sadly, this wouldn't force regs to play each other. It would be a manic game of 'Musical Chairs', regs rushing to try and be the first to get on the only spawned-in tables, waiting for recreational players to sit. Knowing the structure, the strongest HU players in a given player pool would play anyone. Eventually, the weaker regs would learn to leave as soon as the best HU player sat-down, resulting in an extremely unfair system whereby 1 player could occupy all spawned tables. In an Alpha-Male esque dominance of the only spawned tables, the best HU player would get to play all the recs themselves, every time.
Good idea, just not one that would work in this instance I'm afraid.
Shocking explanation ik, it's 4:30am. Apologies. The analogy here is extremely poor, as it fails to take into consider the negatives of 'offering your favourite biscuits'. It would work if we were referring to the lack of Full-Ring tables on the site, sure. There are limited noticable repercusions to removing these tables in favour of a strictly 6max format. The HU tables are completely different, however. Games rarely run resulting in a small intake of rake for the site, players refuse to play one another, the weaker competition are allowed to be winning players using "game selection", bumhunting is bad for the longevity of the game AND pokers image.
This issue isn't purely a matter of personal opinion, but objective forethought, as how to benefit the poker economy and community.
If your argument is strung up on limitations, you'd have to address every other form of poker that isn't currently offered on Sky. Do variations deserve a chance on Sky? Sure. Is HU one of them? Absolutely not. Speak for yourself.
Less wild, provocative generalisations please. Which is the exact reason why I'm trying to press this issue and make people aware of the current problem w/HU online poker.
HU games humiliate and alienate recreational players, while allowing outright terrible regs to 'game-select' so that they're a winning player at any given stake.
Case in point, a vast majority of regs here could beat 100kNL HU if they only decided to play Guy Laliberte and refused to take action from anyone else. I've honestly not seen a post more wrong than this in a very long time. So many fallacious arguments I don't even know where to begin. Will tackle it tomorrow as it's already 5am.
Absolutely appalled at your rationalisations, AJS. 'Disgusted' would be an understatement. It's demonstrably unsuccessful at eliminating bumhunting on other sites. Bumhunting for the most part isn't a reliant on realising familiar names of good opponents, HUD stats on prior competition, or notes on how they play.
It's about sitting down with someone, playing a small number of hands, and deciding whether or not they're a rec, or a reg.
Play as few as 20 hands of HU, and most people will already have a rough idea of your skill level. If you're 3beting frequently and with good consistant sizing. If you fold your bb a reasonable for a min-raise, prolly a reg. If you check-raise your semi-bluffs or show a capability for thin value bets, prolly a reg. etc etc the list could go on.
Anonymous tables fail because people can STILL game-select and instantly avoid regs.
gg gn peeps. I'm knacked.
If I told you their was a player at 5/10 shoving ATC every hand would you sit at that table.
Well you would be mad not to sit wouldn't you.
Why do poker players go and play weaker players from table selecing at nl10 through to businessman selecting in macou.
What your saying is it is unfair to the rec player who chooses to sit down at a hu table.
Well I think they should have that choice.
If someone wants to sit down and play HU then how does this affect you Smit.
What are the negative implaications for poker/ Sky and you if HU tables remain and bumhunting contnues.
I don't think anyone can quantify that.
Is this just a self serving mission to get these recs on 6 max tables and take away the rec's option to sit at HU.
So essentially everyone can take from the rec equally.
I mean Smit we don't want these players to leave the site, so we want them on 6 max tables !
So what's in it for you Smit, you just want a share of the money by forcing them onto 6 max tables ?
O btw their is a player at 5/10 happy to get it with TPNK, anyone fancy joining this table ?
Or you could join the other one with Style and all the other regs.
mmmmmmmmmmmm
Just an idea, have you played on any of these??
Gl all at the tables
Cash hu games are differnt kettle of fish to me, and feel if you are willing to sit on cash hu with £5, and do same with std hu game that cost £5 + 50p, i stand better chance of gaining profit longer term then would in cash (if you know what i mean)
The other thing i find very annoying is when no re-match is arranged, then u see other person on another table for same stake waiting for player to join them WHY??
Gl all at the tables
+1 - If sky were to remove HU then the people wanting to play this will just choose another site that does offer it.
I don't personally ever play it but it's something i defo want to improve on and will be looking into in the future.
Getting HU in a tourney is a rare thing for me unfortunately ha, but when i do get there i don't want to get run
over so playing HU will help gain some experience.
It doesn't really matter why people choose to play it, but having the choice to do so should be there.
Thanks for the feedback, keep it coming.
Why remove them? what benefit would it bring to the site?
http://www.dusktilldawnpoker.com/blog.php?profile=4&id=438
But because of rake they do not want to change.
Once you look at the games from a rec's perspective, no fun at all.
You try sitting at ONE cash table of say nl20 or nl50.
I have been doing it for a while latley and the games are not great.
deffo in decline, specially if your a rec on a table with 5 multi tablers playing 12%.
after a while your just gonna think sod this.
O Smit you kinda let me down, was expecting a long winded argument with no valid points apart from making out your out for the good of poker when infact your only thinking about your own gains.
But if you want to be Sparticus, you can be
then OMG you have to agree with Galfond, not like he ain't abused online poker for like EVER!
It's amazing but when players have their win rate cut by better competition then suddenly they want to do something about the decline of poker.
OMG there is no easy money left, OMG bring back 2007.
I find it all very laughable.
I love it how every poker player wants more recs playing, because that is what all this about.
More recs coming into the game, more money for everyone.
lets not dress this up and make out we are doing this for the good of the recs.
You all want more recs playing and the game to last forever with great win rates.
It's left me nowhere to go but just deem our conversations a lost cause.
Your preconceptions, stubborn attitude and unwilling nature to discuss with those that disagree with you...
...is a recipe for some of the most tiresome posts I've seen here on Sky.
Please, PLEASE read your posts above. You assert many incorrect truths, use degrading generalisations, and patronise your opposition before dismissing their claims based on the fact that, "I'm right because you're wrong.".
Either we can trade ideas, learn from one another, and show the forum a different PoV for them to consider...
Or you can continue dictating opinion as fact in the face of logic and reasoned argument.
The ball is in your court.