Most wanted PartyMine feature?

[Rudbaeck]

Mine 20/40 if you run out of 15/30 tables, but primarily focus on 15/30 is high, high, high on my wish list!

[Jacques]

The number one for me is definitely not to shutdown the tables I am playing at when they go below the threshold that I set for the number of players per table.

There is a do not close check box for each table, but that doesn't work for me.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are saying make it so you could set a minimum of 3 and a max of 6?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my #1 feature request also.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Prod1gy]

I am going to change the way the Don't Close works to make it work in the way you describe, I think it will be much more useful that way.

[Prod1gy]

I am thinking of a clean way to design and implement this. It will require alot of detailed logic to make it work right. Basically I would have to monitor every level and starting from the highest level fall back and keep monitoring every level.

What happens when a new 20/40 table opens, do I drop one of the 15/30's and start mining the new 20/40?

What if there was only 3 20/40's 3 15/30s do I then fall to 10/20?

[splashpot]

So I guess SNG support is last on the list? Only when that is implemented will I consider buying.

[sthief09]

in your algorithm, it seems to know when to pick up a new table. if I get 10 tables, and 8 are available, then one new one opens, it knows to add it.

so I'm thinking, have a list of 11 in the program, but don't let it open an 11th table. only let the 11th table be of the higher priority limit. so if someone wants to mine 30/60 first and 20/40 second, and a new 30/60 table opens, make that 11th. when there is an 11th table, force it to close a 20/40 table to open a 30/60 table.

would something like that work?

or you could put all the available tables in a priority queue and close a 20/40 table if a 30/60 table is on the top

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
I am thinking of a clean way to design and implement this. It will require alot of detailed logic to make it work right. Basically I would have to monitor every level and starting from the highest level fall back and keep monitoring every level.

What happens when a new 20/40 table opens, do I drop one of the 15/30's and start mining the new 20/40?

What if there was only 3 20/40's 3 15/30s do I then fall to 10/20?

[/ QUOTE ]

For my purposes it'd be the other way around, first do 15/30, if necessary fill out with 20/40. Mining 10/20 full would be pretty pointless for me.

Logic seems simple. If you allow N different limits being ranked, then when it's time to open a new table it checks if one is available on limit 1. If there isn't it checks limit 2, then limit 3.... then finally checks limit N and gives up. (The day it can't find ten tables to observe spread over four limits on Party I'll believe the 'Internet Poker is Doomed' prophets.)

A checkbox option for 'instantly switch on available primary limit table' would be nice. But that's just icing on the cake. The above feels pretty essential to 24/7 15/30 mining though. The number of tables at peak and bottom hours is so far apart it's not even funny.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
I am thinking of a clean way to design and implement this. It will require alot of detailed logic to make it work right. Basically I would have to monitor every level and starting from the highest level fall back and keep monitoring every level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, would this work:

Lets say we want to mine 10 tables. 5/10 full and drop down and mine 3/6 if there are no more tables.

Mine 5/10.

If there are no more available 5/10 tables to mine and we are mining<10 tables, then switch to 3/6 and add tables until we are mining 10 tables.

If one of our tables falls below the threshold min# players, then start the whole process over again at 5/10.

Of course, I don't think this is anywhere near as important as adding flexible player range or distributed mining against XP accounts.