is "game selection" being a punk?

mockturtle · #1 07-05-2007, 05:58 PM

im sort of new to limit cash (on ftp).. but the politics are really starting to annoy me. i've seen posts here where people talk about "game selection" but it feels like it's a euphamism. obviously people don't carry the same nicknames on the forum so i don't know if it's 2p2ers doing so, but am i the only one that thinks it's despicable to wait at a table (let alone multiple tables) and refuse to play the person that sits down?

even so, refusing and leaving would be a bit sad but fine, a polite thing to do, but what happens is the kind of messed up stalemate where you can log on at 8PM and see six 15-30 tables at 1/2 all with different dudes.

maybe it's just me. i'm sure plenty of nits will agree that "it's all about the EV!!" and "why play someone who i can make .5bb/100 against when i can watch tv and wait for someone who i'll make 5bb/100 against!!) but, personally, i think it would be better for the game if you just played or left [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img].

i'd suggest to FTP that they not allow sitting out at HU tables, and also not allow a new table to open up until the previous one has been filled (2/2, not 1/2). i'm all for people waiting around and trying to poach the fish, but they should do it by staring at the lobby and not waiting at the tables.

edit: i forgot to mention this problem is exacerbated by people who datamine and dodge based on the results... you're avoiding people you've never even played before which is pretty wack.

2461Badugi · #2 07-05-2007, 06:25 PM

Waiting and then sitting out is just being an [censored]. Waiting and deciding not to play and leaving is fine. Just cause you're sitting there doesn't make it your table. But preventing new HU tables from starting would be bad. And preventing people from sitting out at all would be bad, because people do need breaks from time to time.

The obvious solution is to put a medium-short time limit on sitting out at HU tables.

Wu36 · #3 07-05-2007, 06:30 PM

yeah, quitting people is fine but you should leave the table if you're the one who doesnt want to give action.

mockturtle · #4 07-05-2007, 06:34 PM

not being able to sit out and take a piss sucks, i agree, but in personal experience, >75% of people just leave if you sit out and say you're pissing

LordMushroom2 · #5 07-05-2007, 07:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
you can log on at 8PM and see six 15-30 tables at 1/2 all with different dudes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is unfortunate too because the fish may catch on to what´s happening to them with whatever adverse consequences that has to winning players.

I think the problem is easy to solve by not opening a new table until the previous table is full and kicking players who sit out for say 10 minutes plus banning them from that particular table for say 30 minutes.

That being said, I would do exactly what those six players were doing. They are simply doing their best to win as much money as they can, and it is not their fault the site´s policy is flawed.

Leader · #6 07-06-2007, 12:18 AM

If there isn't a limited selection of tables then I see no problem with taking up a table. I usually just leave when someone sits that I don't want to play, but I just open another table anyway and sit. So I'm not sure there's any different. I don't think it's horribly rude to simply not post the blind when someone sits that you don't want to play and then wait for them to get up.

2461Badugi · #7 07-06-2007, 12:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's horribly rude to simply not post the blind when someone sits that you don't want to play and then wait for them to get up.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're the one who doesn't want to play, you're the one who's killing a seat.

Leader · #8 07-06-2007, 12:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's horribly rude to simply not post the blind when someone sits that you don't want to play and then wait for them to get up.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're the one who doesn't want to play, you're the one who's killing a seat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if there's an unlimited number of seats. What difference does it make whether I leave to start a new table or you do?

2461Badugi · #9 07-06-2007, 01:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's horribly rude to simply not post the blind when someone sits that you don't want to play and then wait for them to get up.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're the one who doesn't want to play, you're the one who's killing a seat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if there's an unlimited number of seats. What difference does it make whether I leave to start a new table or you do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I have hope that you're taking a break.

Leader · #10 07-06-2007, 01:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's horribly rude to simply not post the blind when someone sits that you don't want to play and then wait for them to get up.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're the one who doesn't want to play, you're the one who's killing a seat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if there's an unlimited number of seats. What difference does it make whether I leave to start a new table or you do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I have hope that you're taking a break.

[/ QUOTE ]

And maybe you can sit at two tables at once? How are you any worse off if you sit at an open table and then try to sit with anyone that's already seated and they won't play you?