*** PokerStars VIP Rep thread ***

[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.

[kiwiMark]

Hi Dylan,

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

That's nice, but then the rest of this post seemed the most hostile yet for no apparent reason so allow me to apologise in advance if my tone is harsh but your post annoyed me and so I feel it warrants more than the pleasant and polite reply that I'm sure PokerStars Dylan will give you.

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

why not try them before you get yourself all worked up and have a go at this poor guy who has to take you seriously?

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

I'm a New Zealander, and as such think that this makes zero sense. If you would have more "freedom of choice" were PokerStars to not exist at all, maybe you could argue like this. As it is, PokerStars is adding one or two choice(s) to your life, not taking any away that would by default be there. Just because they've previously enriched your life with two choices doesn't mean you're entitled to this forever. You may as well complain about the Man holding you under his evil corporate thumb because KFC doesn't sell popcorn chicken any more.

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

Do you play more than one table? If so, playing fewer "fast" tables (so that you have roughly the same rate of hands/hr if that's a concern for you, but as you yourself implied volume should be secondary to thought while developing) is one easy solution to your problem that seems to have no downside and could in fact improve your development-- less individual players for you to try to keep track of.
If you only play one table, see above about trying the fast tables before getting your knickers in a twist- I'd be extremely surprised if you are unable to comfortably 1-table the "fast" tables. Just checking, are you aware of the timebank feature? (this might be of help to you too, Cobra) The timebank means you have more than 8 seconds for the difficult decisions.

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? )

Firstly, I agree with TLR that the lobby is complicated/cluttered. That said, I don't see this particular change having a big impact on that one.

Secondly, (@misteronggggg as well) if the recreational players are too "stupid" to find the fast tables and go play somewhere else, then either you can sit and breakeven while feeling superior that you're smart, or the lobby can be redesigned so that the recreational players are happier, stay, and you have an easier time winning money.

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.

sounds like from daven's post he's a) in support of this change and b) was trying to make the point that of course businesses are going to try to maximise profits, the follow-on being that they will of course put their interests before yours, and that your apparent feeling that pokerstars owes you something isn't going to play a big role in their decision. Make a case that this change will be worse for enough players that it will also be worse for pokerstars, not a case that it will be worse for you personally while not explaining why stars should give a crap about this. (what daven and jyms already said)

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.

Seems perfectly coherent to me, maybe you should just reread it. Liquidity in this case can be used as good as synonymously with "traffic" or "player pool", but used here on a table-type basis, rather than site-wide. Hopefully that clears up why your point here doesn't make sense.

[DoubleJ]

...your post annoyed me ...

head hung in shame.

sorry mate - it was meant to be light-hearted, y'know "RANT RANT, SIGNED ANGRY FROM BASILDON"-stylee.

i even put smileys in it.

it obviously didn't come across. Not the first time. prolly not the last.

Sorry all.

[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...