PokerStars Considering Zoom-Only Tables at High St

http://pokerfuse.com/news/poker-room-...idering-zoom-only-tables-high-stakes/

wtf am i reading?



also ban baal

ban dgmt

im sorry is their name ZoomStars yet? cause ppl come there to play poker

but ultimately it will makes the games better right? like with all the changes they've made in the past years?

On April 06 2012 09:11 MadeInPolanD wrote: im sorry is their name ZoomStars yet? cause ppl come there to play poker

obviously you dont play stars hsnl.. people go there to bumhunt hard and most definitely not to play poker more than 10% of the time. zoom at hsnl will make way more poker get played

This is actually quite interesting to see, there is no other choice for high stakes then PokerStars at the moment, and with this change they would make collusion and bumhunting impossible.

No more 50 ppl queues for scout326 when he sits down

No more railing the high stakes games then?

seems like a very logical thing to do

I'd also like to see ZOOM HU, fk history and dynamics just force people to play one another

On April 06 2012 12:00 TalentedTom wrote: seems like a very logical thing to do I'd also like to see ZOOM HU, fk history and dynamics just force people to play one another

lolll wow that would be ridiculously sick.

this would be legit

-

On April 06 2012 12:00 TalentedTom wrote: seems like a very logical thing to do I'd also like to see ZOOM HU, fk history and dynamics just force people to play one another

they should do this for all limits of hu and not just high stakes.

sounds pretty good to me actually

sounds great

someone explain how this will be good and wont just result in this:

On April 06 2012 15:23 2c0ntent wrote: it will just be dead-empty until a fish sits in the game (alone lol), then people will start joining the 'game'

--- Nuked ---

On April 06 2012 11:40 Ket wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2012 09:11 MadeInPolanD wrote: im sorry is their name ZoomStars yet? cause ppl come there to play poker obviously you dont play stars hsnl.. people go there to bumhunt hard and most definitely not to play poker more than 10% of the time. zoom at hsnl will make way more poker get played

you call it "bumhunt hard" cause they need one fish at the table? :D

it seems to me like that either you want to be on some "high moral ground" on this matter, forgot how u made your money?
or you want to make ppl play poker, cause... they lack the capacity to choose for their own which table they wanna play?

Not talking in PS behalf here but i think it would kill highstakes in matter of months

this will be good for the games stars always delivers lol

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.

I have played some nl 200 zoom poker and i feel there are many fish, certainly many more then nirmal nl200 and i believe the casual player very much likes zoom poker because he diesnt need to wait if bot involved.

Obv i dont deny that it takes part of the game away ( even though you can still get reads obv). On the other hand as mentioned i think this format attracts fish.

I didnt play much nl500 since the 6max is rarely running

yea so far doesn't seem it will catch on on the high stakes, but who knows

On April 11 2012 22:41 Baalim wrote: 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.

lol

yes it is Baal

thats why Zoom exists
thats why Double or Nothing SNGs exist
thats why hyper-ultra-turbos exist
thats why low stakes LHE has unbeatable rake
thats why nittiest VIP system of all time for anyone who cant grind a billion hands
thats why etc etc etc

Yea how do big winners attract deposits and whats the etc?

Yup Baal's def way off on this one. Pokerstars are the MASTERS of policy/schemes that encourage maximum churnage of money with no big winrates for anyone. It's just good business and there's a reason they're the largest poker site, and it's that theyre very good at doing good business.

imo Bejamin1 is spot on for his reason why zoom at low/midstakes doesn't benefit the players but benefits the site, and I feel exactly the same about the SNE scheme. But in both cases (zoom and sne) if it's what a ton of players accept and even want then it's a completely hopeless fight for our side. (EDIT: even i played some 100plo zoom just now just for something to do while waiting on hold on the phone to a elec bills company)

Though on a different note, there's definitely no denying that as Baal said, Pokerstars spend a ton of money on advertising, marketing and promotions designed to get loads of new players depositing. Ofcourse they're doing this for self-interest and because it's good business, but motive aside this is amazing for players too.

fml they add $2.50/$5.00 do they care nothing for software developers who need to make adjustments? What's wrong with 2/4?

zoom is the biggest bullshit of all time
fml

why not just make global waitlist and shuffle tables after a few orbits?

On April 11 2012 20:58 locoo wrote: 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.

That is what i noticed when I started playing, that every pokersite has poker training, FullTiltPoker, Pokerstars, why the fuck do they want me to be good??
Then ofc, if everyone is good, then it's just coolers all around, and before we know the site has taken all the money in rake.

*I know the training is not very good on that site but most euro sites now offer DC,BFP subc. etc.for small rake

On April 12 2012 07:33 EvilSky wrote: Yea how do big winners attract deposits and whats the etc?

You people fail to see that the poker economy has 2 main factors, deposits and churners.

too many churners and few deposits dry the poker economy, but what happens when you focus more on deposits, well "churners" will come by themselves obv.

So you see the tricky and difficult part is getting deposits, getting people to churn that money around is easy, if there are many depositors they will come themselves.

Big winners like lets say Nanonoko are encouraging, Nanonoko graph is inspiring to many casual players and it induces deposits so for pokerstars in under those terms a player like Nano is more valuable than a break even sne even if the sne generates more direct rake.

For example scout generates absurd amounts of rake because he alone will start 3 or 4 tables that wouldnt be running, so in reality that rake is result of Scout, not the bumhunters.

You have to see the big picture and not be so short sighted and think direct rake is what matters.

So to clarify its not that im saying that PS is not profit driven (well duh its a bussiness) im saying that churning is not top priority

so Stars wants to force Scout to play Zoom, that way the 40 bumhunters will generate rake instead of sitting on the waiting list

seems like churning to me

why must it be Zoom ONLY?

why not just have more options and give the players the choice?

On April 13 2012 21:23 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On April 12 2012 07:33 EvilSky wrote: Yea how do big winners attract deposits and whats the etc? You people fail to see that the poker economy has 2 main factors, deposits and churners. too many churners and few deposits dry the poker economy, but what happens when you focus more on deposits, well "churners" will come by themselves obv. So you see the tricky and difficult part is getting deposits, getting people to churn that money around is easy, if there are many depositors they will come themselves. Big winners like lets say Nanonoko are encouraging, Nanonoko graph is inspiring to many casual players and it induces deposits so for pokerstars in under those terms a player like Nano is more valuable than a break even sne even if the sne generates more direct rake. For example scout generates absurd amounts of rake because he alone will start 3 or 4 tables that wouldnt be running, so in reality that rake is result of Scout, not the bumhunters. You have to see the big picture and not be so short sighted and think direct rake is what matters. So to clarify its not that im saying that PS is not profit driven (well duh its a bussiness) im saying that churning is not top priority

You assume way too much. The average depositing fish has no idea who Nanonoko is and has almost certainly never seen his graph. The vast majority of them know only about the live games they've seen on TV. The idea that they're somehow aware of the big winners online is laughable. Most of them have no idea.