|
1 year ago ::
09 Apr 12 09:06 AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2007
|
Getting rid of waiting lists is an interesting idea but I feel you are missing the whole point of waiting lists
Let's say a player logs in intending to play 6 tables, he finds the tables at the level he wants to play and joins one, he then joins 5 waiting lists so that he's notified when another table is available, he can now play safe in the knowledge that he doesn't have to keep scanning the tables between hands looking for others to join, and when he does get a seat at another table there is a good chance it will be a full table (unless multiple players have left)
You say people are afraid to play short handed! I don't agree with that, I wont join a 6 handed table with less than 4 players on it because of the rake, I don't play heads up for the same reason, yes it's nice to play the weak players, but why would you pay more than you need to just to win the same amount? it makes no sense
As Sean posted earlier if you were to get rid of waiting lists people would just use programing to monitor tables to join, therefore creating a virtual waiting list, yes ongame did remove waiting lists but try to join a table that says it has one seat available and see what happens, if that table is being monitored by software you will never get the seat even if you are watching at the time it opens, ongame haven't solved the problem they've hidden it
I agree that there is a problem with people waiting for tables, but I don't think the problem is the waiting lists themselves it's the amount of people allowed to join the list, if it was capped at 2 or 3 players max people would have to open new tables because the lists wouldn't be available after a while, and if people are that anal that they're going to get software to click a "join waiting list" button then your never going to change them
And a further issue you will see all the time is people who have been on the waiting list joining with 10 bb's, then shoving and if they get lucky they leave and join another table for the same amount, if they lose they leave, these players kill tables quickly but while they can do it they will, the minimum buy in on any table should be 50 bb's, watch the waiting lists drop then
I'm too old to die young
Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
09 Apr 12 11:10 AM
#12
|
|
|
waiting lists
the waiting lists are the BETTER players chasing the baitfish that are waiting for them at the tables mentioned
as you say the tech side of POKER now dictates were you SIT ....or were you are at a
statistically at an ADVANTAGE
but thats a side of poker rarely mentioned here anymore
albeit the WAY 2 GO for succesfull cash players now 2 read the first page
oki now go 2 a table with a large waiting list [view table for a dozen or so hands ]and see if the table has LOOSE players
normally these tables are easily picked up bye EYE rather than TECHNOLOGY taht you dont run??
1-2 players well above MAX BUY-INS and low- mid stacks mostly undr max buyin
then CHILL till its ur turn or scan other tables for the same pattern m8s
make your awkward waiting list
into a VALUABLE TOOL in ur POKER arsenal
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
09 Apr 12 02:17 PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Mar 27, 2012
|
You say people are afraid to play short handed! I don't agree with that, I wont join a 6 handed table with less than 4 players on it because of the rake, I don't play heads up for the same reason, yes it's nice to play the weak players, but why would you pay more than you need to just to win the same amount? it makes no sense
That doesn't make sense! You only pay more rake because you play more pots. Also, if you think your winrate against a table full of regs is going to be the same as when playing short handed against fish, you're deluding yourself! I would imagine that the regs who start games have a significantly better hourly and winrate than those who only join full tables that are infested with moderate nits.
And a further issue you will see all the time is people who have been on the waiting list joining with 10 bb's, then shoving and if they get lucky they leave and join another table for the same amount, if they lose they leave, these players kill tables quickly but while they can do it they will, the minimum buy in on any table should be 50 bb's, watch the waiting lists drop then
Short stacking definitely isn't an issue on 888. I'm not sure what limits you play but in the games I play, you can't buy in for less than 35bb. There are some players trying to make money by playing a short stack strategy but they're all just breaking even at best because they suck post flop and the 35bb stacks makes it unprofitable for them to just 3bet jam pre.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
09 Apr 12 03:52 PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Mar 14, 2009
Status:
one of those days =)
|
haha infested with moderate nits yeah whatever ....also there are only so many fish out there so if they are on 4,6 or 9 handed tables theres not much difference in the amount of players.. on a 4 handed table action junkies will be more satisfied nothing more..dont know what limits you are playing but short stacking is defo a problem at the limits I play at 12/25c 15/30c you can buy in for 20bbs omaha tables are notorious for it.. 40/50bbs minimum is what I think it should be too!!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
09 Apr 12 05:24 PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Mar 27, 2012
|
haha infested with moderate nits yeah whatever ....also there are only so many fish out there so if they are on 4,6 or 9 handed tables theres not much difference in the amount of players.. on a 4 handed table action junkies will be more satisfied nothing more..dont know what limits you are playing but short stacking is defo a problem at the limits I play at 12/25c 15/30c you can buy in for 20bbs omaha tables are notorious for it.. 40/50bbs minimum is what I think it should be too!!
I play mostly $50nl and the games are infested with moderate nits. Minimum buyin at $30nl is $10.50, which is significantly more than 20bb.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
09 Apr 12 05:54 PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Mar 14, 2009
Status:
one of those days =)
|
yes just checked that seems things have changed i always buy in for full amount how does it work out that at $30nl its $10.50 and $20nl its $10 and $10nl its $2 pretty bizzarre to say the least omaha $50 is $17.50 and $25 is $5 anyone know how the site works these things out seems random at best!!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
09 Apr 12 07:57 PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2009
|
Why would you play at a table full of nits if you have a target and hes sitting at a table with only 3 or 4 on it you got to jump in quick before he gives it to some one else and the more hands you play you win in rake back so if your even a break even player your going to win.
And as for short stacks i love just raising them as know they only got 1 move as they cant play poker on the flop. In the long run i cant see how they make much money as the ones i have tracked are all losing players. And why would you sit with a short stack when you flop the nuts you only win a fraction of what you should do.
I think the traffick on in the games i play has increased but normally you dont have to wait long to be sitting down.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
09 Apr 12 10:01 PM
#18
|
|
|
any comment on the number of PLAYERS not playing the JACKPOT GAMES
VERY FRUSTRATING @50/1 tables
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
10 Apr 12 05:43 AM
#19
|
|
|
Totally agree with Wiggy, I guess he said that I met in the better, most understendable way. Paul, seems you just don't understand that i said about empty tables. e.g. if they all would be available at once (e.g. 4+), i would love to go and sit down, but there aree always only one empty table available, so it means that i should all the time monitor to empty table ope up-why i should do it? I better spend my time for concetrating on game, instead of haunting empty tables and no, i'm not afraid of short handed play. Agree about short stacks-sometimes im playing very loose and taking risks can calling then im pretty sure that i will loose just to make sure my reads are good, but that happens? Short stack wins and leaves table, it's frustrating,stupid and makes all the game slower and tighter, cause of it... It should be maximum amount of players possible on waiting list, e.g. 2 or 3, it's not necessary to be there like 8players. In my opinion 888 should start with creating more than 1 emptry table available at same limit (at least 3) + make max 3 players on waiting list, yeah, it's risky, but just for some time and then will see, that's happens...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
10 Apr 12 05:46 AM
#20
|
|
|
how bout implementing the NO A . I . RULE SIMPLE
and watch ur lists dissapear
my thoughts
|
|
|
