09-15-2001, 08:44 PM
Here's a copy of a letter I just sent to Paradise support. Any comments?
Hello,
First, I don't need to tell you how much I enjoy Paradise Poker. All you need to
do is look at how many hands I've played here. (Don't tell me, I don't want to know. ;-) )
There is a phenomena that occurs that I'm not too fond of, though, and so I thought I'd
write. One of the greatest features of online poker is the ease of finding good games and quickly getting on the table you want. However, when the games are a little short, this makes the tables very unstable. When I logged on tonight, there were about 8 2-4 and 8 3-6 games, and half of each weren't full, with 7, 8, or 9 players.
The result was I couldn't find a game which would hold together for more than 2 orbits. The games with less players have the "% which see the flop" statistic inflated, creating a merry go round effect as players leave to go to "better" games, only to find they were wrong and drop out.
I realize it is in your financial best interest to have customers not have to wait too long for a game, but I think it might be less profitable if the rake is smaller because of the players sitting out, and it is certainly not good if someone gets bored and leaves. Every time a game breaks, the player is given an opportunity to ask himself if he's done, or wants to join another table. I'm sure you want to minimize the frequency of such questions. ;-)
Suggestions:
1) Be a little slower to open a new table. Factor in how many people on wait lists are already in 1 or 2 games. I would be very willing to wait an extra 5 minutes if it meant the games were more stable. You could add a feature when the player checked the "any" game box of estimated time to an opening, similar to the dmv. 5 minutes feels like a very long time when staring at a display, but less so when an estimated time is given.
2) Increase the time overhead involved in switching tables. When I'm playing two tables, and a good seat opens up when its the start of a deal, its a real challenge sometimes to finish the hand and the software record that I've left in time to buy in at the second table. Now of come around to the opinion that it shouldn't be difficult, it should be impossible. By making it impossible, a source of frustration is removed, and table hopping is a little more costly.
3) Modify the "players seeing the flop" metric so measurements aren't biased towards less full tables. If the cutoff, button, and both blinds see the flop, It shouldn't count as 40% at a full table and 50% at a table with two empty seats. This exacerbates the table chasing phenomena Perhaps a "besides the big blind" flop percentage would be better. Also, I recommend slowing down the reponsiveness of the metrics. Instead of New = x*last hand + (1-x) * Old, use a smaller x. That way a short run of freakish hands would have less of a distorting affect.
Thanks for reading,
zooey
Hello,
First, I don't need to tell you how much I enjoy Paradise Poker. All you need to
do is look at how many hands I've played here. (Don't tell me, I don't want to know. ;-) )
There is a phenomena that occurs that I'm not too fond of, though, and so I thought I'd
write. One of the greatest features of online poker is the ease of finding good games and quickly getting on the table you want. However, when the games are a little short, this makes the tables very unstable. When I logged on tonight, there were about 8 2-4 and 8 3-6 games, and half of each weren't full, with 7, 8, or 9 players.
The result was I couldn't find a game which would hold together for more than 2 orbits. The games with less players have the "% which see the flop" statistic inflated, creating a merry go round effect as players leave to go to "better" games, only to find they were wrong and drop out.
I realize it is in your financial best interest to have customers not have to wait too long for a game, but I think it might be less profitable if the rake is smaller because of the players sitting out, and it is certainly not good if someone gets bored and leaves. Every time a game breaks, the player is given an opportunity to ask himself if he's done, or wants to join another table. I'm sure you want to minimize the frequency of such questions. ;-)
Suggestions:
1) Be a little slower to open a new table. Factor in how many people on wait lists are already in 1 or 2 games. I would be very willing to wait an extra 5 minutes if it meant the games were more stable. You could add a feature when the player checked the "any" game box of estimated time to an opening, similar to the dmv. 5 minutes feels like a very long time when staring at a display, but less so when an estimated time is given.
2) Increase the time overhead involved in switching tables. When I'm playing two tables, and a good seat opens up when its the start of a deal, its a real challenge sometimes to finish the hand and the software record that I've left in time to buy in at the second table. Now of come around to the opinion that it shouldn't be difficult, it should be impossible. By making it impossible, a source of frustration is removed, and table hopping is a little more costly.
3) Modify the "players seeing the flop" metric so measurements aren't biased towards less full tables. If the cutoff, button, and both blinds see the flop, It shouldn't count as 40% at a full table and 50% at a table with two empty seats. This exacerbates the table chasing phenomena Perhaps a "besides the big blind" flop percentage would be better. Also, I recommend slowing down the reponsiveness of the metrics. Instead of New = x*last hand + (1-x) * Old, use a smaller x. That way a short run of freakish hands would have less of a distorting affect.
Thanks for reading,
zooey