*** PokerStars VIP Rep thread ***

[DoubleJ]

Hi Dylan,

What's with the speed change on 2NL tables?

[PokerStars VIP]

Hi Dylan,

What's with the speed change on 2NL tables?

Hi DoubleJ,

We are moving to a model in which the speed of every table "type" is the same. For instance, all $.01/$.02 NLH and PLO are now "fast" games. As is all razz, except at the highest stakes. This will roll out over a period of time, but the goal is to eventually have one speed per table "type".

We're continuing to listen to feedback and suggestions from players on this, so feel free to share your thoughts and I'll pass them on to the appropriate person for consideration.

Thanks,

Dylan

[DoubleJ]

...the goal is to eventually have one speed per table "type"...

why?

[PokerStars VIP]

why?

Hi DoubleJ,

There are a few reasons in favour of this potential change:

1. Simplifying the appearance and offerings in the Lobby making it easier for players to sit down and play.
2. Improving player liquidity with the union of the 'speed' and 'normal' table player pools.
3. Improving the playing experience for those inconvenienced by the slower play of some of their peers.

We are very interested in player feedback on this issue, so you're invited to share your thoughts.

Regards,
Dylan

[DoubleJ]

1. Simplifying the appearance and offerings in the Lobby making it easier for players to sit down and play.

Huh? How much easier does it need to be?

2. Improving player liquidity with the union of the 'speed' and 'normal' table player pools.

I've no idea what this means. Can u explain please?

3. Improving the playing experience for those inconvenienced by the slower play of some of their peers.

...whilst at the same time massively inconveniencing those who mebbe don't want to play fast tables.

If we have the choice, then we'll vote with our feet, won't we? Are you seeing a signif. bias towards "fast" tables right now?

[PokerStars VIP]

Huh? How much easier does it need to be?



I've no idea what this means. Can u explain please?



...whilst at the same time massively inconveniencing those who mebbe don't want to play fast tables.

If we have the choice, then we'll vote with our feet, won't we? Are you seeing a signif. bias towards "fast" tables right now?

1. We believe some new players find the Lobby complicated, and that simplifying it where possible is better.

2. Liquidity refers to the number of players at any given table type. The more table types we have, the less liquidity each type will necessarily have.

3. We do receive a lot of feedback from recreational players that they don't like slow play.

I assume that you would be against such a move? Are you happy with the current model or is there another option you'd prefer? I'd be happy to pass your feedback on directly to our Ring Game managers.

Regards,

Dylan

[OngBonga]

1. We believe some new players find the Lobby complicated, and that simplifying it where possible is better.

Do you not think that some old players feel inconvenienced when you change things? It wasn't broke, the lobby is equally as complicated now as it was before, ie not very, unless you're stupid.

Not that I care, it's just I find your reasoning here a little flawed. How stupid do you think the newcomers are if you think they find the lobby complicated?

[DoubleJ]

I assume that you would be against such a move?

Hi Dylan,

First off - apologies if my tone came across as hostile previously; was not my intention.

To answer your question - I don't know for sure, as I've never played fast tables; mebbe they're the nuts

From my POV, though, i was disappointed at the news about table speeds as:
1) I'm English, and as such detest having my Freedom of Choice compromised, especially by $MultiBillion Corporates , and
2) As evidenced by my membership here, i'm a student of the game and am concerned about the impact of being forced to play faster is going to have on my development. I do not want to go back to playing robot-style

As I said before, I don't see the how unifying tables this way provides any player benefits. If there are player who don't like the pace of the Normal tables, they already have the Fast table option. (Or are these the players who are too stupid to work the Lobby? )

As daven pointed out in his wacky antipodean fashion, this does rather smack of further fleecing the micro player to help pay off the $720m you owe the DOJ.

Again, your point about Liquidity is puzzling - can you explain what this means to
a) me as a player and
b) you as a Business?

In particular your statement "The more table types we have, the less liquidity each type will necessarily have" is not coherent.

If liquidity is so important, then why not just offer one table type (let's say $100 PLO). Then you'll have 100% liquidity.

But not much of a player pool.

[daven]

Hi DoubleJ,

3. Improving the playing experience for those inconvenienced by the slower play of some of their peers.

i'm all for this
it's going to fuck with the 24-tabling, auto-timebanking rakebots that just slow down the whole system - and i like things that fuck with them without inconveniencing most other players

also, think of it from stars' perspective. If all holdem tables are averaging 75 hands per hour instead of 55 hands per hour, without any effect on the number of tables running then.... they make more $$. This is what most business decisions boil down to. I doubt that anyone finds the lobby that complicated, I have no idea what this will do wrt to player and game liquidity.

note that eliminating camping and introducing the seat hopping prevention measures suggested above would also improve the playing experience, but it wouldn't improve profits, so, watch that space...