PokerStars Considering Zoom-Only Tables at High St - Page 2

On April 07 2012 04:49 Baalim wrote: Not talking in PS behalf here but i think it would kill highstakes in matter of months

what exactly do u mean by high stakes? you mean waiting for scout stakes?

on that note - 100% of microgaming HU tables are anonomous HU tables - as a result instead of 80 tables per stake with bumhunters waiting which currently exists in 90%+ of sites - There are about 4-6 HU tables per stake with people playing one another and 2-3 with people waiting for an opponent. Which from an action prespective is the same as every other site, on stars for every 1 table of action theres 30+ with an empty seat + a bumhunter

On April 07 2012 10:00 TalentedTom wrote: Show nested quote + On April 07 2012 04:49 Baalim wrote: Not talking in PS behalf here but i think it would kill highstakes in matter of months what exactly do u mean by high stakes? you mean waiting for scout stakes?

2knl and up would never run, and 1knl would see a significant decrease in traffic imo, this is what i think initially i havent discussed it at lenght or put much tought into it tho.

I just think that if bumhunters dont play anymore yeah the pool will have a better fish/reg ratio but with way fewer tables so i dont think our winrate would be improved, its sometimes hard to find games even in 1knl at certain times, i wouldnt like to be forced to play lower cuz nobody is willing to battle regs on zoom

Im not sure how I feel about this tbh, on one hand it seems like a good way to deal with bumhunters, hit and runners and shortstacks (or at least the ratholing) but it does throw away table dynamics and other aspects of the game... maybe some sort of hybrid would work better dunno.

On April 07 2012 10:03 TalentedTom wrote: on that note - 100% of microgaming HU tables are anonomous HU tables - as a result instead of 80 tables per stake with bumhunters waiting which currently exists in 90%+ of sites - There are about 4-6 HU tables per stake with people playing one another and 2-3 with people waiting for an opponent. Which from an action prespective is the same as every other site, on stars for every 1 table of action theres 30+ with an empty seat + a bumhunter

yes anon tables would be really great. It only takes a few hundred hands to get a lock on player style so it's not like you need some crazy longterm dynamic to worry about. Would love pure anon tables and didn't know microgaming was all anon. Better than joining a bunch of fishreg tables only to be sat out a million times.

1 gay thing about anon HU would be the cunt bitch hitnrunners/blind stealers. How are you supposed to avoid giving them action

On April 07 2012 10:03 TalentedTom wrote: on that note - 100% of microgaming HU tables are anonomous HU tables - as a result instead of 80 tables per stake with bumhunters waiting which currently exists in 90%+ of sites - There are about 4-6 HU tables per stake with people playing one another and 2-3 with people waiting for an opponent. Which from an action prespective is the same as every other site, on stars for every 1 table of action theres 30+ with an empty seat + a bumhunter

indeed, and if people want to play hu matches they can use home games.

On April 07 2012 13:04 EvilSky wrote: Im not sure how I feel about this tbh, on one hand it seems like a good way to deal with bumhunters, hit and runners and shortstacks (or at least the ratholing) but it does throw away table dynamics and other aspects of the game... maybe some sort of hybrid would work better dunno.

and it completely ignores the fact that the fish probably dont want to play zoom poker

On April 07 2012 21:46 byrnesam wrote: Show nested quote + On April 07 2012 13:04 EvilSky wrote: Im not sure how I feel about this tbh, on one hand it seems like a good way to deal with bumhunters, hit and runners and shortstacks (or at least the ratholing) but it does throw away table dynamics and other aspects of the game... maybe some sort of hybrid would work better dunno. and it completely ignores the fact that the fish probably dont want to play zoom poker

you completely ignore the fact that there are no fish, the "best" players know which button is the one with the most value; and everyone wants to see more hands/hr. More volume/time = less time spent = more fun/hand.
I see no use in the idea of "table dynamics" I prefer more variety in my opponents and always being able to look left and find someone new. Zoom-a-zoom!

On April 07 2012 23:56 Centrin wrote: Show nested quote + On April 07 2012 21:46 byrnesam wrote:   On April 07 2012 13:04 EvilSky wrote: Im not sure how I feel about this tbh, on one hand it seems like a good way to deal with bumhunters, hit and runners and shortstacks (or at least the ratholing) but it does throw away table dynamics and other aspects of the game... maybe some sort of hybrid would work better dunno. and it completely ignores the fact that the fish probably dont want to play zoom poker you completely ignore the fact that there are no fish, the "best" players know which button is the one with the most value; and everyone wants to see more hands/hr. More volume/time = less time spent = more fun/hand. I see no use in the idea of "table dynamics" I prefer more variety in my opponents and always being able to look left and find someone new. Zoom-a-zoom!

On April 07 2012 23:56 Centrin wrote: Show nested quote + On April 07 2012 21:46 byrnesam wrote:   On April 07 2012 13:04 EvilSky wrote: Im not sure how I feel about this tbh, on one hand it seems like a good way to deal with bumhunters, hit and runners and shortstacks (or at least the ratholing) but it does throw away table dynamics and other aspects of the game... maybe some sort of hybrid would work better dunno. and it completely ignores the fact that the fish probably dont want to play zoom poker you completely ignore the fact that there are no fish, the "best" players know which button is the one with the most value; and everyone wants to see more hands/hr. More volume/time = less time spent = more fun/hand. I see no use in the idea of "table dynamics" I prefer more variety in my opponents and always being able to look left and find someone new. Zoom-a-zoom!

well played

dont you think that overall tables running would be decreased?

On April 08 2012 03:43 RaSZi wrote: if I see 2 tables 25-50 with 25 people on the list, not really no. I think 5-10 will sustain itself. I think it's a lot easier to apply than must move games and stuff like that. Seeing something has to happen this seems like a good option. High stakes NL is dead anyway. When I was playing holdem I didn't notice it as much either, but when I started playing PLO I saw the big difference.

yes the must move thing is great since it doesnt have a negative impact, this has a HUGE impact.

On April 08 2012 05:16 RaSZi wrote: I don't agree that must move doesn't have a negative impact. It's more complicated than zoom. Complicated is bad for fishes.

Nah its even simplier than zoom but its also avoidable by the hard bum hunters.

I am still undecided about this, it has so many angles to consider its hard for me to predict what would happen besides the obvious: less people from lower stakes bumhunting

I think its a step... and it has to be a step in the right direction because hsnl cannot get any worse?

So they launched 2/5 Zoom tables and right now there are only 3 regular 5/10 games running on a Sunday night which is beyond sad, I think they wont have to restrict the regular games they will just die off by themselves .

The ability to sit down, learn how your opponents play, and then exploit them based on that learning is what poker is all about. Turning poker into a mindless multitabling arcade game where players employ an extremely basic strategy that eeks out a few bb/hr for the winning players is not what I want poker to turn into. The only winner in that situation is the rake.

Less information from dynamics = Smaller edges
Smaller edges = More money goes to the house

Poker shouldn't be a no read arcade game. If you support Zoom that's exactly what your supporting. It might be slightly improved at NL400+ where the player pools are smaller and generally you'll be able to play lots of hands with the regulars regardless. However your opportunity to learn about the weaker players and what specific things they are doing poorly will be lower.

On April 08 2012 15:58 Bejamin1 wrote: The ability to sit down, learn how your opponents play, and then exploit them based on that learning is what poker is all about. Turning poker into a mindless multitabling arcade game where players employ an extremely basic strategy that eeks out a few bb/hr for the winning players is not what I want poker to turn into. The only winner in that situation is the rake. Less information from dynamics = Smaller edges Smaller edges = More money goes to the house Poker shouldn't be a no read arcade game. If you support Zoom that's exactly what your supporting. It might be slightly improved at NL400+ where the player pools are smaller and generally you'll be able to play lots of hands with the regulars regardless. However your opportunity to learn about the weaker players and what specific things they are doing poorly will be lower.

thats exactly what the sites want, pokerstars wants you to breakeven, fk people who actually have a winrate

On April 08 2012 15:58 Bejamin1 wrote: Less information from dynamics = Smaller edges Smaller edges = More money goes to the house

my math isnt what it use to be but i dont see how a persons edge in the game effects the amount of rake the site would get per hand

Because with smaller edges players are closer to breakeven between them which is what every poker site wants, money just goes back and forth and no one goes bankrupt, at least not as fast, more games are played and more rake for the house.

For pokerstars big winners are actually a good thing, it attracts deposits etc, churning the money is not a priority, im guessing other smaller networks with traffic issues focus more on churning the money around.