Party Poker Lobby Riggedness

Basically PartyPoker has begun segregating players according to winrates. They have some mechanism in their lobby that is preventing winning players to see losing ones , in other words winning regs can't see complete player pool. IDK what they are thinking but if it's true this is a clear case of discrimination

checkout video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_At1H1fDnss

Has anyone noticed something weird about PartyPoker lately?

Something similar used to happen to me when I played on ongame, during the night, tables would usually disappear from the lobby at around the same time every night as I remember. Only way i noticed this was when I could only see 3 active tables when I was playing 6 myself :/

Don't play there much anymore so don't know if it's still going on.

Seems like a really good idea. I can see the point of it.

Kinda kills bumhunting too, which is great.

What? How can you call that a good thing even if you hate bumhunters.

On March 01 2013 06:29 DustySwedeDude wrote: Seems like a really good idea. I can see the point of it. Kinda kills bumhunting too, which is great.

i can only see this benefiting fish, the regs will go play pokerstars instead, or they will buy fish accounts/ or make new accounts and play in fish only games.

Seems really dumb by partypoker imo.

PartyPoker (Vaguely) Confirms Player Segregation: New Players “Protected” from Regulars Although specifics are still unknown, certain tables containing a threshold of “new” or “inexperienced” players are apparently hidden from other players. A representative from PartyPoker has, in rather uncertain terms, confirmed that they are at least “testing” a feature that apparently grades tables, and removes them from the lobby of regular players. A Party representative posted publicly Thursday that the company is “testing various features to make poker more fun and entertaining,” including looking for ways to facilitate “players of a similar ability” playing together “in the early stages” of their online poker experience. After days of speculation, an official representative from Party Poker posted the following on 2+2: We are continually looking for ways to balance our poker room ecology. As we have said before, we are testing various features to make poker a more fun and entertaining game for both new and inexperienced players. Our extensive research shows that new and inexperienced players enjoy the game more and continue playing for longer if in the early stages they play with players of a similar ability, this includes, but is not limited to our welcome lounges. These players are free to play on any table they chose. Party has recently seen strong growth in traffic thanks to the transition of bwin players onto the PartyGaming platform, which has let it keep in striking distance of Full Tilt in terms of cash game traffic. Protecting the “poker room ecology” has been highlighted as an important goal for bwin.party. Part of this multi-step plan has included removing the bad beat jackpot, cutting its VIP program at the highest tier, and moving onto social and mobile gaming platforms. c/p from pokerfuse.com

On March 01 2013 07:15 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On March 01 2013 06:29 DustySwedeDude wrote: Seems like a really good idea. I can see the point of it. Kinda kills bumhunting too, which is great. i can only see this benefiting fish, the regs will go play pokerstars instead, or they will buy fish accounts/ or make new accounts and play in fish only games. Seems really dumb by partypoker imo.

Yea well, winning regs has to either play at harder tables or start new tables. "Bumhunters" will have a much harder time. Really good regs will get more action from slighly worse regs. Don't see what value people who table selects hard brings to the table for anyone, they just steal action from the "I'll just play whoeverthefuck"-crowd, they target fish and they won't sit in any seat that wouldn't be filled fast by someone else anyway. Fish happy, site happy, "I'll play whoeverthefuck"-ppl happy. Sounds good to me.

I would be down for a ranking system based off winrate. Just like chess, checkers, all skill games.. Give the bad player an opportunity to see who hes playing with. Just have the ranking pts on the side of each players screen name. Its alot better than not giving everyone a fair chance to play.

...so basically what you are saying is open a new party account every few months to get on all the best tables and avoid regs?
Seems legit.

All regs that want to play with at least 1 fish per table should leave with their money. Problem solved. Let's see how bwin.Party will handle this.

Or just cash out a lot cause you are forced to play much less tables - so you need smaller bankroll there.

On March 01 2013 06:29 DustySwedeDude wrote: Seems like a really good idea. I can see the point of it. Kinda kills bumhunting too, which is great.

it always amazes me how fast some ppl forget how they made most of their money.

That philosoraptor makes no sense brah.

was going for thought process in the middle and effect at the end, cause i couldnt find easily image that would fit better

Party has pulled the self-destruct switch. I cant imagine the genius behind this executive decision

On March 01 2013 11:03 MadeInPolanD wrote: it always amazes me how fast some ppl forget how they made most of their money.

1. I've obviously made most of my profit vs fish but for the majority of time I played I've had very little table selection. When I made most of my money while playing 2/4-5/10 on prima my table selection for a good 2 years and a million hands or so was to sit on any free seat for 6 max tables and then "join all waitlists" until I had whatever number of tables I used wanted to play. I did sit out if shortstacks joined though. I did table select a bit at 10/20+ but I never did at my main stakes. This is the reason I actually got better faster then 95% the regs I played with on any give stake.

2. I'd much rather have crap regs being forced to play me more then getting one or two extra tables with some fish some of the time, and considering the fact that I actually start tables a decent % of the time I'll probably get more fish action from this. If this happened on some site I played I'd just start tables like a crazy person and play whoever HU until a fish joined and then I could be certain that I'd be on a table with 2-3 good players, the fish and then no more winning regs. Seems like it'd be much easier to win money that way then having to compete with people for good seats all day.

3. What does that have to do with anything? Just because someone made money some way before you feel that you have the right to do the same thing now?

Poker sites have absolutely no use of winning grinders unless they win money from players on other skins. If they have enough fish other people will show up and as long the fish gets whatever action he wants the sites don't give a shit if you are playing there.

as i remember Prima, it was a network about the size or smaller than merge is now, if you wouldnt choose all tables waiting lists at particular stakes you didnt play at all


may i ask why did you play on Prima? why not any other pokerroom?


LET ME GUESS:

IT WAS SOFTER

:D

On March 01 2013 12:11 DustySwedeDude wrote: Poker sites have absolutely no use of winning grinders unless they win money from players on other skins. If they have enough fish other people will show up and as long the fish gets whatever action he wants the sites don't give a shit if you are playing there.

100% not like that for tourneys, where people care about the size of first prize, hence regs affect #participants, which does affect $first prize though thats beyond the scope of party's measure, which only affects no limit cash games.

Bwin.party have their own network, and all 3 skins (WPT, party, BWin) are owned by them, so the whole skin argument does not matter.

anyways, perhaps you're forgetting that being a reg @ midstakes(and up) implies that you are likely playing poker to make a living. you're not going to make a living by playing people of (on average) equal or better skill, therefore playing with weaker opponents is a necessity.
No fish in the game = no game for regs.

On March 01 2013 12:11 DustySwedeDude wrote: Poker sites have absolutely no use of winning grinders unless they win money from players on other skins. If they have enough fish other people will show up and as long the fish gets whatever action he wants the sites don't give a shit if you are playing there.

YOu realise the image of poker itself get destroyed by something like PP did?
They are rigging (no idea if its a word) the games...
they make a ''legit'' game not legit for their own profits... which mean they can do anything, like make a fish hit so you lose

WHat pp did is terrible for the poker players and the poker in general

they change the ''outcome'' of a game for their own profits...
and people agree with it
unreal
...

one guy on 2+2 descibes how it works:

First of all this is just so ridiculous in so many ways, especially with the whole "hey lets hope nobody notices anything" attitude and even the support denying everything at first. I'm pretty sure I got to experience this "test" in full action. I only started to play on Party like a week ago and the games just seemed amazing, I could easily get 9 tables with 2+ fishes on every table and it just seemed when a fish got broke and left there was a new fish joining in. Well this fun ended up lasting for three days, on day number four it was just a complete regfest. Played a long session and just literally saw like two fishes the whole time. Played a couple of sessions after that and it's been the same. And starting tables and waiting for a fish to join isn't working at all, so I don't know if this whole system has something to do with the quick start tables but it's just impossible to get good games going on now. And not to mention I still got the horrible lobby lag after playing for like 30 minutes, couldn't really find any fix for it. Anyway, it was fun while it lasted but goodbye for now Party!

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=37402693&postcount=9280

Regulars forced to play regulars more. More money gets raked because people have a smaller edge.

Misrepresent this plan to take more money out of the games as "caring about the ecology of the games"

You know what would improve the ecology of poker games online? Lowering the rake from the obscene amount of money they subtract whilst telling you all that its necessary. This change Party Poker has made is about greed pure and simple. They want more of the money to come back to them. Lowering the rake is also the answer to getting regulars to stop hunting the worst players - aka making it profitable for them to play people who they are better than, but not better than + better than rake as the games currently stand.

(almost) everyone thinks he's better than he really is, but little people are delusional enough to think they can easily overcome 10bb/100 of rake on 6max only regfilled tables @ nl100

this is also the misconception about so called bumhunting: every winning player has some sort of tableselection, whether the standard is to "not play above limit x" or to "avoid playing with players xyz". I agree however, that extreme bumhunting (only play with -20bb/100 or worse players) is a problem.

The solution however is not to do what party did, which is discrimination without informing people

funny thing is they already have anonymous tables if fish feels like he is being hunted by regs he could easily play anon tables without anyone knowing his screen name

Great idea party! Let's encourage regs to multiaccount to keep having new names that can play on fish tables.

lol its as scummy as some sites kicking winning regulars, pp just does it in gentle way

I think any type of rating system is unusuable for poker

poker=/=chess

Both games are skill games but one being pure skill and other one having high level of variance in it and it makes a huge differents

How are they going to measure poker skill?
-by comparing winrates or money won ? errrr sample seize, variance ?
It can't be a fair system and it can be manipulated
-isn't that realy hurting your costumer's privacy by telling other people how much money they have won?

Why not limit table numbers, disallow huds and ptr, make some kind of restrictions or penalties for leaving tables and support table starters
And as someone said ... if you realy want to help.. stop being greedy fucks and lower rake on low stakes so that weaker players could move up faster and listen to your costumers

After doing this without letting anyone know makes them shady as fuck... I mean who knows what they could do next and you not knowing? Where does that stops ?

On March 01 2013 14:44 maryn wrote: lol its as scummy as some sites kicking winning regulars, pp just does it in gentle way

Haha that happened to me twice on 2 different ipoker skins back in 2008. On VCPoker after 1 month where I 'only' won like $12k.

Listen, here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in the first half hour at the table, then you ARE playing at Party Poker.

Yeah, seems to me they are trying to implement some sort of ELO system based on "skill" of poker.


From a completely GAMEPLAY view of poker, this seems like a good idea, since playing people of the same skill as you encourages you to outhink/outwit.

Like how playing a game of SC1 against a complete noob isn't as satisfying as playing someone equally as good as you.

But since poker is gambles, not sure how viable this is....

It's not. We're all in it to win money and in an ideal world we would only play against fish because that's what I like best at least.

So in an ideal world when it comes to poker we'd all be Galfond playing non-Galfonds.

I can believe some of you are so stupid to think this is good, wow.

I agree with most of the critical comments. I think that PP is mainly looking at it from the point of view of protecting players who are not experienced at playing online (to encourage them to continue playing and depositing money). That would in theory help the ecology of the games. As stated above, by a few ppl, not sure it is realistic, or "viable." But I do think their main concern, with these changes, is to keep new players coming back.

Maybe new/losing players can rent their account to winning players to give them access to super soft tables

Great idea for people like me :D

On March 01 2013 12:26 MadeInPolanD wrote: as i remember Prima, it was a network about the size or smaller than merge is now, if you wouldnt choose all tables waiting lists at particular stakes you didnt play at all may i ask why did you play on Prima? why not any other pokerroom? LET ME GUESS: IT WAS SOFTER :D

It was tax free (unlike Pokerstars was and FTP probably is for Swedish players) and unlike Ongame and old Entraction I felt the software was decent enough that I did not want to stab myself in the eye. Back in the day Prima actually had decent traffic, as in ~10ish tables of 3/6+ running all the time except mornings and late nights.

On March 01 2013 12:48 rogier wrote: 100% not like that for tourneys, where people care about the size of first prize, hence regs affect #participants, which does affect $first prize though thats beyond the scope of party's measure, which only affects no limit cash games. Bwin.party have their own network, and all 3 skins (WPT, party, BWin) are owned by them, so the whole skin argument does not matter. anyways, perhaps you're forgetting that being a reg @ midstakes(and up) implies that you are likely playing poker to make a living. you're not going to make a living by playing people of (on average) equal or better skill, therefore playing with weaker opponents is a necessity. No fish in the game = no game for regs.

Yea but this has little/nothing to do with donkaments, right?

Yes I like playing against fish, I also like playing weaker regs. There are many more weak regs then "pure" fish. Thus I'd prefer if the weak regs is forced to play more with me over being able to join every fish table that happens to be running. Particularly since I'm not as good as checking the lobby 10 times per minute like the more specialised bumhunting guys and thus probably wouldn't have gotten a seat anyway.

On March 01 2013 13:29 HeRoS)eNGagE wrote: YOu realise the image of poker itself get destroyed by something like PP did? They are rigging (no idea if its a word) the games... they make a ''legit'' game not legit for their own profits... which mean they can do anything, like make a fish hit so you lose WHat pp did is terrible for the poker players and the poker in general

No, there's nothing in the rules that prevents them from protecting fish and having separate player pools. Skins on some networks who has a lot of sportsbettors or whatnot has done that for ages.

"Rigging" the cards would get then thrown out of every reasonably serious country in the world.

Obviously they should be open about what they're doing and not lie about it, but as a general idea it seems like it'd work just fine as long as they crack down really hard on multi accounting and stuff like that.

It'd be better if the ranking system was open though, like tournament leader boards or whatever.

Add Revolution to the list:

http://pokerfuse.com/news/poker-room-news/revolution-joins-the-player-segregation-party-lobby-catalogue-to-categorize-players-01-03/

On March 01 2013 06:29 DustySwedeDude wrote: Seems like a really good idea. I can see the point of it. Kinda kills bumhunting too, which is great.

On March 01 2013 12:07 DustySwedeDude wrote: I've obviously made most of my profit vs fish

Well, you wouldn't have any of those profits if a true segregation was in place. Winrates for regulars would drop down to a point where very few people beat the rake and handle the insane breakeven stretches. In a midstakes game nowadays where you have only regulars even if you think they have some leaks you're not going to be making much more than 1bb/100 (have fun with million hand downswings). The best player in the world would make a laughable profit. But yeah, his skill would be molded by the toughest games anyone has ever seen. Hurrah for him.

This is ideal for the poker room, but how YOU think this is a really good idea blows my mind. If you accept an idea like this nothing stopping them from further segregation of the player pool (clump up the very best together) to a point where it's not even possible to make ANY money.

dusty the pothead

Reminds me of the Frank Dodd Act. Only profitable for those who sell the services.

noticed this a while ago
first they cut rakeback now they split player pool
ok
bye bye partypok then

On March 01 2013 12:11 DustySwedeDude wrote: Poker sites have absolutely no use of winning grinders unless they win money from players on other skins.

This isn't true. Regs are the ones who pay the most rake. Fish usually bust or cashout to avoid losing all of their money(if they run good).

The best scenario for a poker site is a bunch of regs playing multiple tables playing breakeven or slightly losing poker. This allows them to rake the maximum.

Regs also keep games alive, until weaker players have the chance to sit.

On March 01 2013 08:30 handbanana21 wrote: I would be down for a ranking system based off winrate. Just like chess, checkers, all skill games.. Give the bad player an opportunity to see who hes playing with. Just have the ranking pts on the side of each players screen name. Its alot better than not giving everyone a fair chance to play.

Nlhe would die in a week, hyper turbos and plo slightly slower i guess

terrible

To be fair, game quality fluctuates immensly between days... For plo anyway. There are times when games are lol soft, and days when unplayable (sundays)

PLO pool isn't segregated, but maybe some regs cashed out.

On March 02 2013 15:06 goose58 wrote: Show nested quote + On March 01 2013 12:11 DustySwedeDude wrote: Poker sites have absolutely no use of winning grinders unless they win money from players on other skins. This isn't true. Regs are the ones who pay the most rake. Fish usually bust or cashout to avoid losing all of their money(if they run good). The best scenario for a poker site is a bunch of regs playing multiple tables playing breakeven or slightly losing poker. This allows them to rake the maximum. Regs also keep games alive, until weaker players have the chance to sit.

You don't get it. Regs don't keep games alive, depositing players (fish) do. If there were only regs playing poker eventually all the money in players' accounts would run out because no-one would deposit.

they are just ruining the games by this move, in the long run if players play other of similar skill they will get all the BR

On March 02 2013 16:38 OoozeDonatin wrote: if players play other of similar skill they will get all the BR

that's the point
fuck them imo

On March 02 2013 16:11 Twisted wrote: Show nested quote + On March 02 2013 15:06 goose58 wrote:   On March 01 2013 12:11 DustySwedeDude wrote: Poker sites have absolutely no use of winning grinders unless they win money from players on other skins. This isn't true. Regs are the ones who pay the most rake. Fish usually bust or cashout to avoid losing all of their money(if they run good). The best scenario for a poker site is a bunch of regs playing multiple tables playing breakeven or slightly losing poker. This allows them to rake the maximum. Regs also keep games alive, until weaker players have the chance to sit. You don't get it. Regs don't keep games alive, depositing players (fish) do. If there were only regs playing poker eventually all the money in players' accounts would run out because no-one would deposit.

Yea, fish supply the money, but they don't pay much rake. Their money goes to the better players who continually play and rake and re-rake that money.

You didn't think that Stars gives RB and supernova+elite bonuses out of the goodness of their heart did you?

you forget that without money supply, there will be no rake

Without depositing players, there is no online poker.

like I say in threads about too much rake, party are a business and the goal of a business is maximize profit. there's no obligation to let pros be able to make money. if its not in your interest as a customer simply stop playing there. let the free market decide whether their business model works. you wouldn't go to an online blackjack site and express outrage that their games aren't set up in a way that lets you win in the long run.

The main shady thing tho which I think it's legit to be angry about is how party are keeping this quiet and hoping people wouldn't notice. but if you've been around online poker for any length of time you'd already know party aren't exactly famed for how they treat their players.

Now here's another side of the coin you should appreciate: what would you think about this feature as a recreational player? I'd be loving it, it would be a much more enjoyable experience than the shark infested waters at pokerstars. this kind of thing could hit your bottom line indirectly if you don't even play on party if recs on other sites hear about this change and switch to party. for this reason you should be happy party aren't exactly advertising this 'feature' in big bright letters, but that you know about it.

see you soon on stars, ex-pp regs!

On March 01 2013 12:11 DustySwedeDude wrote: Poker sites have absolutely no use of winning grinders unless they win money from players on other skins. If they have enough fish other people will show up and as long the fish gets whatever action he wants the sites don't give a shit if you are playing there.

If this was the argument they should have banned the HU bumhunters a long time ago (Or just closed the HU tables completly, since there are ONLY bumhunter vs fish action at them anyway. The same fish could go to ring games)

Btw I still have hopes that one day the poker sites will do what Everest / Pokerstars did... Put all the HU tables below their ring game lobby (Or everest put them into an isolated lobby).


Or just get like... max 6 tables per limit... let the regs fight for those tables and we will get some interesting matches too ! The Ongame lobby where the fish has to browse throu 36 HU tables with no action to find a ring game is sooooooooo SOOOO terrible ((((( Makes me want to puke really

My impression is that the sites love 12-24 tabling regs that chase rakeback/bonuses/rakeraces and will do anything to attract these guys to their site

The current decline of fish constantly depositing is what caused this. Regs do only one thing, which is mostly withdraw monthly - this and thin deposits = screw the regs obv.

The online poker business has a ton of overhead, and poker's popularity died 3 years ago, you can't expect sites to continue operating like they did in the early 2000s. The money has to come from somewhere, if not, they have to cut back on perks or keep the fish excited by playing against other bad fish.

Bottom line - poker is a card game and it was not really meant to be an "online business"and somebody's job forever. These businesses would rather close shop in a dying market than give very low rake due the very unstable and expensive nature of running such a business.

Make plans. The very elite and most determined of players are the only ones who should continue playing poker as their main source of income because it is just going to get worse in the coming years,

sites love break even regs, they just dont like people who cash out alot of money so they try to force everyone playing ev0 game, that move by pp was scummy as fuck have no idea how some of you think its a good thing LOL

On March 03 2013 04:48 VanDerMeyde wrote: My impression is that the sites love 12-24 tabling regs that chase rakeback/bonuses/rakeraces and will do anything to attract these guys to their site

Your impression is neither right or wrong, I think. It depends. As long as room is able to supply a lot of casuals it's all great. But when casuals runs out then problem begins. Casuals are "eaten" very fast, regs don't play with each other therefore games aren't running very often and not enough rake is made.

Stars is basically only site that doesn't have to make that big changes in favor of casuals and themselves, yet. For now they've changed only method of calculating rake, I believe. But I'm positive they will. It's just a matter of time: more markets closing, more licensees costs, even shittier economy and so on. I bet Stars changes their VIP in benefit of casuals and themselves in 3-4 years tops. Maybe for something similar to FTP so everyone gets 20-25% rakeback (and more in casual-happy promotions) instead of 5-10% for casuals and 50-75% or so for regs.

On March 01 2013 14:44 Daut wrote: Great idea party! Let's encourage regs to multiaccount to keep having new names that can play on fish tables.

Didn't read whole thread, but this was my first thought.

All this is going to do is cause a multi accounting explosion, which is terrible for everyone.

completely OT: all hail stars for sure, but
don't forget 888 is also doing a lot better recently by having genuine good management; they're not stars, but a lot of the stuff they are doing makes a ton of sense. 888 also improved their catering to fish by improving the fisheg ratio on the tables by not allowing regs to masstable.
Seeing as how 888 is not a major site, this makes perfect sense as most regs probably play multiple sites if they care enough, while fish enjoy not waiting forever for a reg to act.

On March 03 2013 15:57 nolan wrote: Show nested quote + On March 01 2013 14:44 Daut wrote: Great idea party! Let's encourage regs to multiaccount to keep having new names that can play on fish tables. Didn't read whole thread, but this was my first thought. All this is going to do is cause a multi accounting explosion, which is terrible for everyone.

Not gonna happen. Reevaluation and assigning to a higher pool if you're winning takes place very quickly. 10k hands max.

On March 03 2013 15:57 nolan wrote: Show nested quote + On March 01 2013 14:44 Daut wrote: Great idea party! Let's encourage regs to multiaccount to keep having new names that can play on fish tables. Didn't read whole thread, but this was my first thought. All this is going to do is cause a multi accounting explosion, which is terrible for everyone.

i do not know how can people in the first place multi account, that is risking quite a lot of money unless they use their family to make accounts

On March 02 2013 19:39 Ket wrote: like I say in threads about too much rake, party are a business and the goal of a business is maximize profit. there's no obligation to let pros be able to make money. if its not in your interest as a customer simply stop playing there. let the free market decide whether their business model works. you wouldn't go to an online blackjack site and express outrage that their games aren't set up in a way that lets you win in the long run. The main shady thing tho which I think it's legit to be angry about is how party are keeping this quiet and hoping people wouldn't notice. but if you've been around online poker for any length of time you'd already know party aren't exactly famed for how they treat their players. Now here's another side of the coin you should appreciate: what would you think about this feature as a recreational player? I'd be loving it, it would be a much more enjoyable experience than the shark infested waters at pokerstars. this kind of thing could hit your bottom line indirectly if you don't even play on party if recs on other sites hear about this change and switch to party. for this reason you should be happy party aren't exactly advertising this 'feature' in big bright letters, but that you know about it. see you soon on stars, ex-pp regs!

Except that this can be easily circunvented with multi-accounting which ruins the game, but ultimately as you said the market will decide if this is a good idea, but also public opinion and bitching is part of that so bitch away so this ridiculous crap ends.

revolution network will follow party

"Fair play Technology" LOL

lol this is def bullshit. I'd play at tables full of regs if there were no better tables...but at least give me the chance to play with fish what the fuck. that kills the bottomline longterm no matter the skill level.

and +1 what talented tom said...i recently got booted from an ipoker skin simply due to a "managerial decision" which was utter bullshit. they snap refunded my account balance and closed my account O_O

imagine that shit happening at a casino...."sorry because you're winning too much we can't let u play here anymore. You are now banned from this casino forever LOL"

scumbags gonna scum

On March 06 2013 15:43 YoMeR wrote: and +1 what talented tom said...i recently got booted from an ipoker skin simply due to a "managerial decision" which was utter bullshit. they snap refunded my account balance and closed my account O_O imagine that shit happening at a casino...."sorry because you're winning too much we can't let u play here anymore. You are now banned from this casino forever LOL" scumbags gonna scum

This actually happened to an Aussie billionaire back in the day. He was running hot in a London casino playing blackjack and they cut him off.

On another occasion, he was barred from the London casino Crockfords for winning too much. According to his right-hand man and partner in fun, Trevor Kennedy, he had won "about 10 million quid" in the previous few weeks and the casino had tired of it. The manager took Packer aside, offered him a free dinner, and then politely requested he gamble elsewhere. According to Kennedy, Packer came back "with a big grin from ear to ear", saying it was the thing he had always wanted: to be banned from a casino for winning too much. Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/...-e6frfkp9-1111114058559#ixzz2MoFwJPIb

judging from 2p2 'official pp thread' there are still some ppl playing O___o

Will fish start up their own tables ? I always had the impression fish would just join whatever is out there

At least regs are good for getting games started...

One change that would be really hillarious and good for poker long therm... what if they made it so fish could not see HU tables...

Wonder how many years until the HU bumhunters would figure it out

games still seems just as busy as ever

On March 12 2013 13:08 Highcard wrote: games still seems just as busy as ever

and you know what that means

On March 12 2013 13:56 dogmeat wrote: Show nested quote + On March 12 2013 13:08 Highcard wrote: games still seems just as busy as ever and you know what that means

lolololol

my old account is now considered a fish account?

sweet deal

On March 12 2013 17:38 Highcard wrote: my old account is now considered a fish account? sweet deal

only for ~1 day of play