Internet game preservation

[amulet]

i find that people sit out often at internet poker sites and then the games fall apart. therefore, i have written the below letter. i hope some of you who also hate switching games every 10 minutes will take this letter and send it to the sites you play.

Dear Partypoker,

I feel that a significant problem exists at partypoker in the area of game preservation. The real money games fall apart very easily and therefore, it hurts both the players and your business.

The players are hurt because we now have to look for a new game, sometimes putting ourselves on a waiting list. Then often entering a game that has new players that we must now learn how they play, and the new game may not be as “good” (different average). Frequently I have had two games fall apart simultaneously, then had to wait on the list for what seemed like a long time to enter two new games.

Party poker is hurt in two ways by the game falling apart; first, some players just leave the site when the game breaks, second, when a game falls apart and players are waiting on a list you are not making your rake from those players (or from the game that fell apart). Of course once they get into a new game, your rake continues, however, given how often games fall apart at partypoker I know that you are loosing significant moneys until the players all get into new games.

Since this hurts both the profit and enjoyment of the players, and hurts the number of players and your rake (therefore your profit), both the players and partypoker have an interest in trying to hold together the games.

I have a few ideas.

There seem to be two main problems:
1. Players who consistently sit out (and then the system kicks them out).
2. Players who the moment another player sits out they then sit out and then leave the game.

To address the first problem, the players who consistently sit out (and then the system kicks them out), I suggest you implement a system similar to your disconnect protection system. The current rules allow a player to sit out for 25 hands , however many players abuse this. If a player sits out without returning more then the set 25 hands repeatedly in a set period of time, then they loose the privilege to sit our more then let’s say 10 hands (10 hands still allows them to take care of personal business), but stops them from hurting the game as badly as they do now).

As for the second problem, Players who the moment another player sits out they then sit out and leave, I have not come up with a great suggestion to address this problem. I think you should institute some type of rewards program, for the players who stay in one game for a certain period of time thus encouraging this productive behavior. And this benefits you by making certain that you continue to earn your rake.

Additionally, John Feeney wrote a book entitled INSIDE THE POKER MIND. In that book there is an essay on game preservation. I am sure if you credit the book, Mr. Feeney would allow you to print that essay on your web site.

I hope you address this problem. As a regular customer of partypoker I find this to be a major disruption.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

[astroglide]

sorry to break the news, but the person who reads that email is probably getting paid $0.40/hour and english is their fourth language

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
english is their fourth language

[/ QUOTE ]

English is my first language and I didn't do much better.

[mmcd]

That e-mail sucks. There is no better game on the internet today than a Party 15 full table gone 4 or 5 handed.

[SA125]

With 45-60K players at any given time, they could give a sh*t less about what you think. If they did, they wouldn't allow players to get screwed by sitting on a waiting list for 30 min, only to get japped by some weasel. They're making more money than many small countries.

[amulet]

i love the short handed, but the point is they usually only last a few minutes too

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]
only to get japped by some weasel.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the need to get racist?

[J_V]

When people talk about "game preservation" they aren't referring to it in the short-term sense.

S&M are talking about a game's LONGTERM livelihood, not in the next ten minutes vein.

Edited for homophone error.

[amulet]

you just love being negitave.

[amulet]

"japped" is not an appropriate word to use. racism is not appropriate here (or anywhere).

as far as responding to your post, i have to believe that any sucessful business wants to keep improviong their product. i hope they look at all feedback.

[mmcd]

as far as responding to your post, i have to believe that any sucessful business wants to keep improviong their product. i hope they look at all feedback.

All they want to do is make $. FWIW I have NEVER had to wait for 15/30 seat unless I wanted to get into a specific game. You could log on right now and be sitting at 4 15 tables with in 3 mins.

[amulet]

sure, if you do not care about game selection. however, using your player notes, pokertracker, buddy lists, then to get into the games you want, only to end up back on lists is a real pain. and it is not smart poker to just let the software choose the games -- we have tools to help us get a greater advantage.

[mmcd]

I think you overestimate the importance of game selection. First off so many of the real clowns are hidden from search, and finding a tough party 15 game is like finding a needle in a haystack.

[amulet]

i think it is impossible to overstate the importance of game selection anywhere anytime.

yes there are a huge number of awful players on party, however, the right game increases your winning results. a few quick examples, if i have a player who my notes tells me will call any raise with a pair and call to the river regardless of the board, i play a pair differently, then AK that missed, if i have notes that tells me a player always plays any ace, and i have KK i can know i am beat even if he is a monkey, i can find passive players, know someone always pops me on the turn, etc. playing 3 or 4 games it is difficult to watch each game carefully, therefore, the tools become even more impt.

[YoureToast]

You're taking a beating here, undeservedly so. In any event, I think its a minor problem too and I disagree with those who think Party doesn't care to improve their customer service experience. The problem with your email is your suggested solution, which is impractical. A better solution in my view would to enact a 3rd man walking rule, like the brick and mortars. This way the games would remain 8 handed at least a little longer. Other solution is to reduce the number of open tables, but then game availability becomes an issue.

[amulet]

your idea is good. why not send them an e-mail, since you also feel it is a problem, however minor?

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
"japped" is not an appropriate word to use. racism is not appropriate here (or anywhere).

[/ QUOTE ]

Amulet, you really must lighten up. Hoodwinked usually isn't on the tip of my tongue. Like George Carlin says, people aren't broke anymore. They're financially challenged. It's getting stupid.

In real life nobody, but nobody, calls anyone the N word more than the young brothers in the ghettos call each other. Trust me. I worked in them for 15 years.

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"japped" is not an appropriate word to use. racism is not appropriate here (or anywhere).

[/ QUOTE ]

Amulet, you really must lighten up. Hoodwinked usually isn't on the tip of my tongue. Like George Carlin says, people aren't broke anymore. They're financially challenged. It's getting stupid.

In real life nobody, but nobody, calls anyone the N word more than the young brothers in the ghettos call each other. Trust me. I worked in them for 15 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you japanese? If you are I digress but I highly doubt it. If you're not you're definately an ignorant ass.

[CardSharpCook]

Amulet - This is your cause and you Champion it well. I agree with you whole-heartedly, the current state of affairs is ROTTEN. I find my play tends to be in the red for the first 15 min at any given table, but once I go over an hour - well, I'm more likely to be in the black.

I also think that you overvalue table selection. You are a true poker player - not one of these crazy 8-tablers (wink wink). I find that I'll have notes on half of any given table, after an hour, I've got notes on the whole table. I don't care about WHO is at the table, as long as I know how to beat them - an hour at any table, I feel I have that knowledge.

As for your suggested remedy - hey, if it works, I'm all for it, because this problem KILLS my play. I'm not good short-handed.

Another possible remedy is to reserve a portion of the poker room to work as a B&M. Players sign on to a waiting list, when a seat opens up, they sit down. If the list goes over 10, start a new table. If there is no list and players start to get up, break up the tables (most recently created first) and seat the players at other under-handed tables.

I'm behind you 100%, Amulet, and I'm sending an email today!

CSC

[DcifrThs]

amulet,

from your posts, you appear to be a good winning thinking player.

these qualities are not consistent with somebody who writes a letter like that...

just move to another game...im pretty tight about game selection...but the LONGEST i have to wait is like 10 minutes TOPS TOPS TOPS

plus, party just does not give two sh*ts

-Barron

[ActionBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Amulet - This is your cause and you Champion it well. I agree with you whole-heartedly, the current state of affairs is ROTTEN. I find my play tends to be in the red for the first 15 min at any given table, but once I go over an hour - well, I'm more likely to be in the black.


[/ QUOTE ]

This shouldn't worry one too much. It generally takes between 60 and 90 minutes to reach the "long run" so those early few hands just try to get by.

-ActionBob

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]

This shouldn't worry one too much. It generally takes between 60 and 90 minutes to reach the "long run" so those early few hands just try to get by.

-ActionBob

[/ QUOTE ]

lmao.

[CardSharpCook]

I really hate all the negativity I'm seeing in these responses...(the irony of this statement just struck me)

She's getting two response: "this is the way it is, get over it," and "well, if you were a better player, it wouldn't matter."

That's SO unfair. This IS a problem, this CAN be fixed, we CAN do something about it!

It is in Party's interest to change! They ARE a business that seeks to maximize profits. IF we can bring this to the attention of a person in their organization who has that passion to expand and maximize and perfect - we can change things. These people exist everywhere (though they are rare).

Actually, there are two ways to initiate change. First, we convince Party that they'll make more money. Second, we show Party that they have a large handful of committed players who are disgruntled. The LAST thing party wants is for one of us to go check out another site. Extrapolate my play and I pay $30k a year in rake. I know that some of you pay a good deal more than that as I am a part-time player (full time cook). Our numbers DO matter. We matter to party and if enough of us request a change - change will be made.

Ya'll just got to remember what it was like to believe in a cause and jump on the bandwagon.

CSC

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This shouldn't worry one too much. It generally takes between 60 and 90 minutes to reach the "long run" so those early few hands just try to get by.

-ActionBob

[/ QUOTE ]

lmao.

[/ QUOTE ]

ON THE FLOOR

-Barron

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This shouldn't worry one too much. It generally takes between 60 and 90 minutes to reach the "long run" so those early few hands just try to get by.

-ActionBob

[/ QUOTE ]
lmao.

[/ QUOTE ]

ON THE FLOOR

-Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya'll are just mean. This is not a terrible statement. Hell, if I go into a casino, I don't even count it as a session if I'm sitting there for less than 4 hours. I think that we all believe that if we sat at any given table for 24 hours, a week, a year, our whole lifetime we would be profitable. Bob believes that 60-90 minutes is the time in which it takes to get to the point at which he is profitable 75% (or whatever) of the time.

Or perhaps your laughter comes from the belief that ANY time spent at a card table is profitable. I think this is an 8-tabler faux pas. Imagine: You step into a 200 table cardroom. You are told, you will be dealt one hand at every single table. All the other players will continue their game as if nothing unusual is going on. We've timed it so that you'll be in each position 20 times. You ready?

Thank you, but no. I'd rather "reach the long run" at a single table for 200 hands.

CSC

[whitelime]

I agree that there are ways to improve this. I am disappointed in the donkeys who made useless posts claiming there is no solution or that no solution will ever be enforced.

Here is my idea:

One of the problems I notice is that when one person leaves, it can take a while for someone to sit down in that seat. Meanwhile, another person might leave, and a 3rd and 4th person might now sit out. The table will soon break up.

One way to improve this is to only cycle through the waitlist for the first empty seat. This way, if two people leave, only one seat will be reserved while the second seat will now be open to anyone who clicks open the table and sits down.

This has two benefits. First, I think tables will break up less often. Secondly, anyone can now see a table with 8 or less players and know that they can open it and find a seat to sit down.

The one downside to this is that waitlists will probably move slower. I don't think this is too bad because I'd rather wait two more minutes to get on a full table than get on tables every 20 seconds to find that there are 2 empty seats and 3 people sitting out.

What do you think?

[ActionBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This shouldn't worry one too much. It generally takes between 60 and 90 minutes to reach the "long run" so those early few hands just try to get by.

-ActionBob


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


lmao.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ON THE FLOOR

-Barron


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ya'll are just mean. This is not a terrible statement. Hell, if I go into a casino, I don't even count it as a session if I'm sitting there for less than 4 hours. I think that we all believe that if we sat at any given table for 24 hours, a week, a year, our whole lifetime we would be profitable. Bob believes that 60-90 minutes is the time in which it takes to get to the point at which he is profitable 75% (or whatever) of the time.

Or perhaps your laughter comes from the belief that ANY time spent at a card table is profitable. I think this is an 8-tabler faux pas. Imagine: You step into a 200 table cardroom. You are told, you will be dealt one hand at every single table. All the other players will continue their game as if nothing unusual is going on. We've timed it so that you'll be in each position 20 times. You ready?

Thank you, but no. I'd rather "reach the long run" at a single table for 200 hands.

CSC


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for sticking up for me, CSC. I don't see what's so funny. OK, maybe I was stretching it with the 60-90 minutes comment but I think I read some formula in Mason's book that states within 120 minutes all players should have a 90% chance to be within +/- .15 BB of their actual win rate.

-ActionBob

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This shouldn't worry one too much. It generally takes between 60 and 90 minutes to reach the "long run" so those early few hands just try to get by.

-ActionBob


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


lmao.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ON THE FLOOR

-Barron


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ya'll are just mean. This is not a terrible statement. Hell, if I go into a casino, I don't even count it as a session if I'm sitting there for less than 4 hours. I think that we all believe that if we sat at any given table for 24 hours, a week, a year, our whole lifetime we would be profitable. Bob believes that 60-90 minutes is the time in which it takes to get to the point at which he is profitable 75% (or whatever) of the time.

Or perhaps your laughter comes from the belief that ANY time spent at a card table is profitable. I think this is an 8-tabler faux pas. Imagine: You step into a 200 table cardroom. You are told, you will be dealt one hand at every single table. All the other players will continue their game as if nothing unusual is going on. We've timed it so that you'll be in each position 20 times. You ready?

Thank you, but no. I'd rather "reach the long run" at a single table for 200 hands.

CSC


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for sticking up for me, CSC. I don't see what's so funny. OK, maybe I was stretching it with the 60-90 minutes comment but I think I read some formula in Mason's book that states within 120 minutes all players should have a 90% chance to be within +/- .15 BB of their actual win rate.

-ActionBob

[/ QUOTE ]

wow bob...i was laughing b/c i thought you were being sarcastic a bout the long run...and i think bk did too...

sorry man...wow...

first off, i dont multitable...i used to have my own database i made from an old one mason posted a while ago (over 4 yrs ago...excel style) with a few tweaks. if i play live, for any amount of time i log it in that old database...online goes in pokertracker.

as for the rest of the long term discussion: coilean and myself once walked into the ameristar feeling great. we played 20/40 for i think 9 hrs or so and we both lost more than 1000 or 1500 i think...it was a while a go so please excuse my lack of exactness.

we then discussed whether we played poorly or made any mistakes we would not have made if we were playing our most bestest poker...we also wondered what the probability was that we could both walk in there and lose as we did...

now coilean is one of the most intelligent people i've ever met and i can tell you i dont take his opinion lightly...i dont remember exactly what he said and i will not put words in his mouth...BUT i do remember us concluding that ANYTHING can happen in a day/week/etc...go read elysium's post about his trip to tunica...and he's one of the best who post here regularly. its clearly not a long run in 1 hr 5 hrs, 10 hrs etc...

i dont know where mason derived that formula and its late so i can't think about it myself...but i can tell you i've never seen it and i've read likely almost everything he's written many many times over, including every post he's written on this board (mid-high) since 1996 (i read the archives when i started in 2001).

poker involves a LOT of luck in the short run...so whats the likelyhood that a player is within .15bb of his winrate within x time? sh*t i don't know but x better be f*ing huge....i dont even quote MY winrate with an accuracy like that.

and how do you explain the hourly standard deviation mason has quoted time and time again? what do you think it means?

-Barron

[Buckshot]

Mr. ActionBob was still joking, Barron. I mean, please.

~stephen