Sigh @ this thread just becoming a slanging match...
Ok Beaneh's response could be taken in a slightly derogatory manner (lol) but at least he had a point, and was making it well.
But now this is just silly, how is it relevant how much Percival plays on the site? He obviously does play on here because he nearly did the Jackpot the other night, but volume is irrelevant really. And then we got Pipunch again...
Sigh @ this thread just becoming a slanging match... Ok Beaneh's response could be taken in a slightly derogatory manner (lol) but at least he had a point, and was making it well. But now this is just silly, how is it relevant how much Percival plays on the site? He obviously does play on here because he nearly did the Jackpot the other night, but volume is irrelevant really. And then we got Pipunch again... Posted by Lambert180
lol @ you.
'here's me agreeing with big name player who's talking nonsense'
'oh look but some other big name player refuted it'
'ok guess i was wrong'
and what reason did you have to mention me in your post? is it because you look like the mutant, tashless offspring of barry chuckle? is that why you feel the need to come on here and try to constantly make a name for yourself?
In Response to Re: Heads up tables : BIG +1 for this, it would be a shame to spoil such an interesting thread. Posted by Sky_Poker
Big +1 indeed!
No need to get personal at all. This was my original point above, that things were getting side-tracked from an interesting thread... and then the messenger got shot lol.
+16 anyway removing heads up tables will not do any good for anyone except sky and weaker high stakes players. those who play heads up will simply close the 6-12 tables they're sat at waiting on sky and join another site and do it there instead. also if an 'ND' wanted to play 6max and not go for (what they may see as a spin) heads up, then they'd be playing it already? Posted by Pipunch
1st bold: then it would be a good idea for them?
2nd bold: surely its the exact opposite, almost all the people who are sat at the HU tables are weak players
If SKY can't code/program something to limit the problem then nothing is going to happen it's a common problem, created by the regs at that level It's only them that can change it, but they are just too selfish to actually do anytihng else - simples ! I don't blame them, but surely if you want ND's to sit at 6 max tables then maybe you should start playing them yourselfs.
Limit I play I will start 6 max tables because I know a ND will join the first table that has a seat or seats. Obviously ND's are very rare at NL00+ so the REGS sit at HU tables so they get them to their selfs which is fair enough.
Question for the regs, if none of you sat at HU tables would a ND sit at an empty table ? Or would they join any empty seat at any table at that level.
sim - I dont think I have a right to win, I did slip and use the word fish i apoligise
beaneh- I cant be bothered reading your post, I am sure its having a go at me, if its not i apologise
james - my win rate has dropped so has everyones, If I never make another penny from poker my entire life I will be more than happy. Poker has enabled me to achieve so much, more than I ever imagined. I am in a position that most people work their entire life to achieve.
I started this thread as a suggestion to improve the site. If you disagree with me no problem, just an idea not saying it will work, it was just a idea.
sim - I dont think I have a right to win, I did slip and use the word fish i apoligise beaneh- I cant be bothered reading your post, I am sure its having a go at me, if its not i apologise james - my win rate has dropped so has everyones, If I never make another penny from poker my entire life I will be more than happy. Poker has enabled me to achieve so much, more than I ever imagined. I am in a position that most people work their entire life to achieve. I started this thread as a suggestion to improve the site. If you disagree with me no problem, just an idea not saying it will work, it was just a idea. Posted by ajs4385
Your ideas were welcome, & a useful start to a good debate, irrespective of anything else.
It was rather a shame that it went from a debate to an argument, because open debate is win-win for all parties.
Hopefully the debate can continue on this & other matters that affect players.
sim - I dont think I have a right to win, I did slip and use the word fish i apoligise beaneh- I cant be bothered reading your post, I am sure its having a go at me, if its not i apologise james - my win rate has dropped so has everyones, If I never make another penny from poker my entire life I will be more than happy. Poker has enabled me to achieve so much, more than I ever imagined. I am in a position that most people work their entire life to achieve. I started this thread as a suggestion to improve the site. If you disagree with me no problem, just an idea not saying it will work, it was just a idea. Posted by ajs4385
awww babes, just read the last line, it professes my love for you innit!
I don't profess to be an expert on how a site should run. In fact my knowledge of what's good for a site is probably crammed full of gaps and oversights. However in my opinion:
HU table spawning: I said earlier that new tables should only spawn when two people are seated rather than one (actually not sure which is the case at present). Obviously Regs can work around this by both sitting out until a spawn with one moving on. I don't know if the techs can do this but can a new table only spawn after a certain period of play in either hands or time?
Rake Races: Beaneh said this is a short term fix, not a long term fix. I agree it is not a long term solution but I would qualify that it is and should be used as a sporadic fix. What do rake races do? Make regs play each other. What does this do? To be brutal in the long run this either turns the less skilled regs into NDs or they quit. This will either in the first instance add to liquidity or in the second spread the liquidity further around. Non-depositing regs only add to liquidity through rakeback/C4Ps and as most if not all withdraw at least this amount this effect is negligible. Regs remove liquidity, NDs add to it. Simple maths shows which helps liquidity. It would be bad to damage too many regs as you need traffic on the site to attract recreational players, but when it becomes too Reg filled that is bad also, it's a tricky balancing act which all online poker sites have to work out. One last point, I don't think rakeraces have much direct effect on HU tables, this is a side point which has sprung up in the debate and is not the focus on the OP.
KOTH: I wasn't aware of this before this thread started (like I said, lots of knowledge gaps I need to fill). Seems like a decent solution. I would say that all sites have this HU BH problem, a brief look in the lobby of 'that big one' at practically any level will show you how ridiculous and widespread the problem is.
All for now. Mod note: Play nice.
EDIT:
Forgot the most important point. I think choice needs to be maintained. IMO just doing away with HU tables is completely wrong but yes, the problem you can see from just looking at the lobby needs to be addressed. But as I said before, this problem isn't exactly new to online poker and now SkyPoker-centric.
Is there some kind of randomiser, similar to if you were to do a search option for a free 6max cash table. So the ND (or reg for that matter), or any1 who wants a HU cash game comes and selects from a drop down, buy in level. And it auto pairs them with the 1st in queue for that level and launches a cash table for the paring. It would be similar concept to registering for a HU sng without checking the lobby for who is playing. This would stop bum hunting as you would literally have to keep doing a table search/ selection and no1 is going to sit there all day waiting to be paired off with an ND. It would be like saying I fancy a HU match at 100NL, let’s see who else does. Obv you can leave if you don’t like your pairing but the ND, SHOULD in theory be exposed to less bumhunting, at least of the extreme sort.
It’s kind of similar to KOTH, but less of a d* kk swinging contest.
Would be keen to know if any of the mid/high stakes regs and sky staff think to this concept for
I think I have a feasible suggestion.. Is there some kind of randomiser, similar to if you were to do a search option for a free 6max cash table. So the ND (or reg for that matter), or any1 who wants a HU cash game comes and selects from a drop down, buy in level. And it auto pairs them with the 1 st in queue for that level and launches a cash table for the paring. It would be similar concept to registering for a HU sng without checking the lobby for who is playing. This would stop bum hunting as you would literally have to keep doing a table search/ selection and no1 is going to sit there all day waiting to be paired off with an ND. It would be like saying I fancy a HU match at 100NL, let’s see who else does. Obv you can leave if you don’t like your pairing but the ND, SHOULD in theory be exposed to less bumhunting, at least of the extreme sort. It’s kind of similar to KOTH, but less of a d* kk swinging contest. Would be keen to know if any of the mid/high stakes regs and sky staff think to this concept for a) Workability b) The general concept Good Posted by pr1nnyraid
Hugo you'd still get people just sitting all day, having people pop up and then they'd decide on whether they were going to drool or not. The thing is you can watch these HUBH have someone sit in (who even Dohh would describe as not 'a super experienced player' and yet they sit out just because they don't even know. It's not lets play some hands and judge our opponent it's is this one of the well known donators if not sit out.
They pay nothing for the constant chance to accept large donations.
It's really hard to make people play a 'match' ie minimum 30 hands or w/e because there are many valid reasons for quitting etc
You could have a fee for everytime you decline action - but that has the downside that people could keep spite sitting with the same person lol to cost them because they know they wont play them.
You could have a fee to sit at an empty table (but that would encourage people to never leave once they'd sat etc)
The specific problems with the HU lobby method
same person sitting 10-20 times
same person sitting multiple times at each limit
same person refuses to play people constantly
same person will even sit out and not leave when someone sits
these problems in turn cause the lobby to have 50+ people waiting no one playing.
Even with the suggestions given by me and otheres, it's clear that many solutions only fix one aspect and can increase the extent of the other problems.
Obviously removing HU tables gets rid of this problem somewhat, but it stops providing a format of the game for many people who want to play it.
1 table at each stake with KOTH would seem the best of a bad bunch of options, under the assumption that removal of the hu tables all together is a step too far.
it's interesting in regard to what a casino would do if they offered heads up, and every time someone you didn't know sat down, you refused to ppst your blind.
pretty sure you'd soon get banned from playing there
In Response to Re: Heads up tables : Hugo you'd still get people just sitting all day, having people pop up and then they'd decide on whether they were going to drool or not. The thing is you can watch these HUBH have someone sit in (who even Dohh would describe as not 'a super experienced player' and yet they sit out just because they don't even know. It's not lets play some hands and judge our opponent it's is this one of the well known donators if not sit out. They pay nothing for the constant chance to accept large donations. It's really hard to make people play a 'match' ie minimum 30 hands or w/e because there are many valid reasons for quitting etc You could have a fee for everytime you decline action - but that has the downside that people could keep spite sitting with the same person lol to cost them because they know they wont play them. You could have a fee to sit at an empty table (but that would encourage people to never leave once they'd sat etc) The specific problems with the HU lobby method same person sitting 10-20 times same person sitting multiple times at each limit same person refuses to play people constantly same person will even sit out and not leave when someone sits these problems in turn cause the lobby to have 50+ people waiting no one playing. Even with the suggestions given by me and otheres, it's clear that many solutions only fix one aspect and can increase the extent of the other problems. Obviously removing HU tables gets rid of this problem somewhat, but it stops providing a format of the game for many people who want to play it. 1 table at each stake with KOTH would seem the best of a bad bunch of options, under the assumption that removal of the hu tables all together is a step too far. Posted by beaneh
Tbf to AJS, his "priority members" are the only ones allowed to sit at an empty HU table suggestion is a pretty valid solution to the problems you describe here Beaneh.
IN RESPONSE TO BEANEH BUT ISNT COPYING CORRECTLY!!
I think you're right with some of the flaws you are pointing out, not sure if I explained my concept well enough though to give it justice.. read on and let me know if this is different to how you read it before, but i do feel it offers a solution the the 'main' problems we have with HU today. I'm not suggesting a 'match' persé (spellcheck), as I'm suggesting no commitment to play x number of hands and no penalty to sit out. Purely just creating a process where every new table that gets spawned is done anonymously, so player A would have to select 'play HU button' then select stake eg '1/2' then wait until the next person who selected 'play HU' then '1/2', at this point the table is spawned with these 2 players. Now this table is formed they have the choice to play or not play, but if either player quits the table breaks and leaves the lobby. They can either play and do another search at that stake if they want to multi table HU, or they can quit the opponent and try get another player. So in effect there would never be any more than one player at a table sitting waiting at each stake and tables pending a second player, would not be visible in the lobby. There is the fact that just as drug addicts pine for the next bit of sugar, a bum hunter is going to bum hunt. Bit this process makes it harder to bum hunt, you can't have dead tables with 1player, meaning bum hunting would be an active process whereby BH has to keep loading up new tables, say no NDs are on the site, and say you have 6hubh's (will abbreviate to 'hunts' for short) . Hunt1 selects to play, hunt2 selects same stake, table spawns, now you have 2 hunts on the same table & players quit, now they repeat, this keeps happening for as long as it takes before they give up. Even the biggest hunt in the world isn't going to sit there all day rejoining games and quitting. It would be so tilting they would quit/ cut down, and the less hunts on the site the better allegedly. So now you have nd who wants to play HU, he can come along and select the game they want or click on the "PLAY HEADS UP" icon and they get a game straight off the bat against either a)an extremely patient hunt, b) another happy go lucky player who has selected to play HU.
I hope I'm not missing something big here.
The main problems you chose to cite are below, and there are no doubt more you didnt point out, but still:
same person sitting 10-20 times Each player may only be in the 'queue' for action once at each stake, there is no benefit to them repopulating the 'queue' as each time they are sitting with another hubh
same person sitting multiple times at each limit This format does not capacitate 'waiting' tables, a table will be autofilled by 1st in queue and will auto break if either player stands.
same person refuses to play people constantly It would be their own time / effort spent re queue ing only to find another hubh waiting, how many times before they quit!
same person will even sit out and not leave when someone sits As above, no benefit as table will break and cannot be filled by other oppo
these problems in turn cause the lobby to have 50+ people waiting no one playing. obv no issue as there will only be a maximum of 1 unfilled table per stake, furthermore this table / or the player on it will not be visible to the lobby.
Edit: extra feature could be an autopost 1st hand meaning nitty hunts would be forced to play at least one hand vs some other hunt.
In Response to Re: Heads up tables : Tbf to AJS, his "priority members" are the only ones allowed to sit at an empty HU table suggestion is a pretty valid solution to the problems you describe here Beaneh. Posted by simuk
ya I exalted that I thought it was a sensible suggestion if not one that could solve everything.
You cant have an ecosystem where two recreational players can't play with each other, that would just be ridiculous.
they have already scrapped the 50/100 a while ago... so 25/50 in the highest. But still there just waiting for the Very slim chance of a very very rich non reg to play:D table spawing isint the case that high i dont think. Altho there has been alot of players sat there recently :P
Comments
Ok Beaneh's response could be taken in a slightly derogatory manner (lol) but at least he had a point, and was making it well.
But now this is just silly, how is it relevant how much Percival plays on the site? He obviously does play on here because he nearly did the Jackpot the other night, but volume is irrelevant really. And then we got Pipunch again...
'here's me agreeing with big name player who's talking nonsense'
'oh look but some other big name player refuted it'
'ok guess i was wrong'
and what reason did you have to mention me in your post? is it because you look like the mutant, tashless offspring of barry chuckle? is that why you feel the need to come on here and try to constantly make a name for yourself?
If we could cool it with the personal stuff guys, we could get back to the purpose of the thread & have a good debate.
No need to get personal at all. This was my original point above, that things were getting side-tracked from an interesting thread... and then the messenger got shot lol.
anyway removing heads up tables will not do any good for anyone except sky and weaker high stakes players.
those who play heads up will simply close the 6-12 tables they're sat at waiting on sky and join another site and do it there instead.
also if an 'ND' wanted to play 6max and not go for (what they may see as a spin) heads up, then they'd be playing it already?
2nd bold: surely its the exact opposite, almost all the people who are sat at the HU tables are weak players
If SKY can't code/program something to limit the problem then nothing is going to happen
it's a common problem, created by the regs at that level
It's only them that can change it, but they are just too selfish to actually do anytihng else - simples !
I don't blame them, but surely if you want ND's to sit at 6 max tables then maybe you should start playing them yourselfs.
Limit I play I will start 6 max tables because I know a ND will join the first table that has a seat or seats.
Obviously ND's are very rare at NL00+ so the REGS sit at HU tables so they get them to their selfs which is fair enough.
Question for the regs, if none of you sat at HU tables would a ND sit at an empty table ?
Or would they join any empty seat at any table at that level.
beaneh- I cant be bothered reading your post, I am sure its having a go at me, if its not i apologise
james - my win rate has dropped so has everyones, If I never make another penny from poker my entire life I will be more than happy. Poker has enabled me to achieve so much, more than I ever imagined. I am in a position that most people work their entire life to achieve.
I started this thread as a suggestion to improve the site. If you disagree with me no problem, just an idea not saying it will work, it was just a idea.
It was rather a shame that it went from a debate to an argument, because open debate is win-win for all parties.
Hopefully the debate can continue on this & other matters that affect players.
To continue the debate:
I don't profess to be an expert on how a site should run. In fact my knowledge of what's good for a site is probably crammed full of gaps and oversights. However in my opinion:
HU table spawning: I said earlier that new tables should only spawn when two people are seated rather than one (actually not sure which is the case at present). Obviously Regs can work around this by both sitting out until a spawn with one moving on. I don't know if the techs can do this but can a new table only spawn after a certain period of play in either hands or time?
Rake Races: Beaneh said this is a short term fix, not a long term fix. I agree it is not a long term solution but I would qualify that it is and should be used as a sporadic fix. What do rake races do? Make regs play each other. What does this do? To be brutal in the long run this either turns the less skilled regs into NDs or they quit. This will either in the first instance add to liquidity or in the second spread the liquidity further around. Non-depositing regs only add to liquidity through rakeback/C4Ps and as most if not all withdraw at least this amount this effect is negligible. Regs remove liquidity, NDs add to it. Simple maths shows which helps liquidity. It would be bad to damage too many regs as you need traffic on the site to attract recreational players, but when it becomes too Reg filled that is bad also, it's a tricky balancing act which all online poker sites have to work out. One last point, I don't think rakeraces have much direct effect on HU tables, this is a side point which has sprung up in the debate and is not the focus on the OP.
KOTH: I wasn't aware of this before this thread started (like I said, lots of knowledge gaps I need to fill). Seems like a decent solution. I would say that all sites have this HU BH problem, a brief look in the lobby of 'that big one' at practically any level will show you how ridiculous and widespread the problem is.
All for now. Mod note: Play nice.
EDIT:
Forgot the most important point. I think choice needs to be maintained. IMO just doing away with HU tables is completely wrong but yes, the problem you can see from just looking at the lobby needs to be addressed. But as I said before, this problem isn't exactly new to online poker and now SkyPoker-centric.
I think I have a feasible suggestion..
Is there some kind of randomiser, similar to if you were to do a search option for a free 6max cash table. So the ND (or reg for that matter), or any1 who wants a HU cash game comes and selects from a drop down, buy in level. And it auto pairs them with the 1st in queue for that level and launches a cash table for the paring. It would be similar concept to registering for a HU sng without checking the lobby for who is playing. This would stop bum hunting as you would literally have to keep doing a table search/ selection and no1 is going to sit there all day waiting to be paired off with an ND. It would be like saying I fancy a HU match at 100NL, let’s see who else does. Obv you can leave if you don’t like your pairing but the ND, SHOULD in theory be exposed to less bumhunting, at least of the extreme sort.
It’s kind of similar to KOTH, but less of a d* kk swinging contest.
Would be keen to know if any of the mid/high stakes regs and sky staff think to this concept for
a) Workability
b) The general concept
Good
Hugo you'd still get people just sitting all day, having people pop up and then they'd decide on whether they were going to drool or not. The thing is you can watch these HUBH have someone sit in (who even Dohh would describe as not 'a super experienced player' and yet they sit out just because they don't even know. It's not lets play some hands and judge our opponent it's is this one of the well known donators if not sit out.
Even with the suggestions given by me and otheres, it's clear that many solutions only fix one aspect and can increase the extent of the other problems.
pretty sure you'd soon get banned from playing there