is "game selection" being a punk?

[mockturtle]

[ 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 ]

I think it's pretty messed up to have a policy of constantly not playing people. I think that's what irritates me the most.

I guess as someone whose interested in playing anyone, all the time I guess I just feel embarrassed for the people who go to such lengths to be nits.

[___1___]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's pretty messed up to have a policy of constantly not playing people. I think that's what irritates me the most.

I guess as someone whose interested in playing anyone, all the time I guess I just feel embarrassed for the people who go to such lengths to be nits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I honestly can't believe there are so many idiotic responses like this.

Why would you care one way or the other if someone doesn't want to play you (or anyone else for that matter) assuming unlimited tables? Why does it "irritate" you if someone doesn't want to play someone else?

If there are an unlimited number of tables then why not just leave if someone doesn't want to play you? Find someone who wants to play you are sit at your own table.

Leader is 100% right. Sorry for being frank, but anyone who has a problem with anyone else's game selection is just being retarded.

[ChicagoRy]

Yea play the worst possible player you can find, you're playing poker for money, right?

I understand if you're just messing around at a lower limit with like .01% of your bankroll or are doing some sort of a grudge match or lesson, but there's not really any reason not to play the weakest player every time you sit down.

[mockturtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's pretty messed up to have a policy of constantly not playing people. I think that's what irritates me the most.

I guess as someone whose interested in playing anyone, all the time I guess I just feel embarrassed for the people who go to such lengths to be nits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I honestly can't believe there are so many idiotic responses like this.

Why would you care one way or the other if someone doesn't want to play you (or anyone else for that matter) assuming unlimited tables? Why does it "irritate" you if someone doesn't want to play someone else?

If there are an unlimited number of tables then why not just leave if someone doesn't want to play you? Find someone who wants to play you are sit at your own table.

Leader is 100% right. Sorry for being frank, but anyone who has a problem with anyone else's game selection is just being retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

i prefer to spend my time playing poker and not waiting around for someone to join. approximately 50% of my time playing poker is spent waiting for an opponent while there are OTHER PEOPLE waiting as well, and i suspect that's only going to get worse.

why WOULDN'T i have a problem with someone else's "game selection"?? not only do they refuse to play me (and force me to waste my time waiting at a table when i could be playing) but by virtue of there being another table waiting for an opponent when i am waiting, i get to wait longer for a third person to join.

[cwar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's pretty messed up to have a policy of constantly not playing people. I think that's what irritates me the most.

I guess as someone whose interested in playing anyone, all the time I guess I just feel embarrassed for the people who go to such lengths to be nits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I honestly can't believe there are so many idiotic responses like this.

Why would you care one way or the other if someone doesn't want to play you (or anyone else for that matter) assuming unlimited tables? Why does it "irritate" you if someone doesn't want to play someone else?

If there are an unlimited number of tables then why not just leave if someone doesn't want to play you? Find someone who wants to play you are sit at your own table.

Leader is 100% right. Sorry for being frank, but anyone who has a problem with anyone else's game selection is just being retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

i prefer to spend my time playing poker and not waiting around for someone to join. approximately 50% of my time playing poker is spent waiting for an opponent while there are OTHER PEOPLE waiting as well, and i suspect that's only going to get worse.

why WOULDN'T i have a problem with someone else's "game selection"?? not only do they refuse to play me (and force me to waste my time waiting at a table when i could be playing) but by virtue of there being another table waiting for an opponent when i am waiting, i get to wait longer for a third person to join.

[/ QUOTE ]
You play for action while ppl who game select play for money neither is wrong just accept that ppl can play for whatever reason they choose.

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's pretty messed up to have a policy of constantly not playing people. I think that's what irritates me the most.

I guess as someone whose interested in playing anyone, all the time I guess I just feel embarrassed for the people who go to such lengths to be nits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I honestly can't believe there are so many idiotic responses like this.

Why would you care one way or the other if someone doesn't want to play you (or anyone else for that matter) assuming unlimited tables? Why does it "irritate" you if someone doesn't want to play someone else?

If there are an unlimited number of tables then why not just leave if someone doesn't want to play you? Find someone who wants to play you are sit at your own table.

Leader is 100% right. Sorry for being frank, but anyone who has a problem with anyone else's game selection is just being retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

i prefer to spend my time playing poker and not waiting around for someone to join. approximately 50% of my time playing poker is spent waiting for an opponent while there are OTHER PEOPLE waiting as well, and i suspect that's only going to get worse.

why WOULDN'T i have a problem with someone else's "game selection"?? not only do they refuse to play me (and force me to waste my time waiting at a table when i could be playing) but by virtue of there being another table waiting for an opponent when i am waiting, i get to wait longer for a third person to join.

[/ QUOTE ]

So they should be forced to play you? Sorry the injustice of you being annoyed at having to wait is less then taking away other players freedom to choice who they play.

[mockturtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's pretty messed up to have a policy of constantly not playing people. I think that's what irritates me the most.

I guess as someone whose interested in playing anyone, all the time I guess I just feel embarrassed for the people who go to such lengths to be nits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I honestly can't believe there are so many idiotic responses like this.

Why would you care one way or the other if someone doesn't want to play you (or anyone else for that matter) assuming unlimited tables? Why does it "irritate" you if someone doesn't want to play someone else?

If there are an unlimited number of tables then why not just leave if someone doesn't want to play you? Find someone who wants to play you are sit at your own table.

Leader is 100% right. Sorry for being frank, but anyone who has a problem with anyone else's game selection is just being retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

i prefer to spend my time playing poker and not waiting around for someone to join. approximately 50% of my time playing poker is spent waiting for an opponent while there are OTHER PEOPLE waiting as well, and i suspect that's only going to get worse.

why WOULDN'T i have a problem with someone else's "game selection"?? not only do they refuse to play me (and force me to waste my time waiting at a table when i could be playing) but by virtue of there being another table waiting for an opponent when i am waiting, i get to wait longer for a third person to join.

[/ QUOTE ]

So they should be forced to play you? Sorry the injustice of you being annoyed at having to wait is less then taking away other players freedom to choice who they play.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's nothing to do with pride. it has to do with being respectful and thinking about the good of the game.

another example is a high limit game with one punter, who, upon sitting out, every single other person sits out too. +EV? maybe. but incredibly rude, and would probably kill action in the future if discovered.

there are plenty of situations in poker where "nitty" behavior which, is +EV, is still wrong.

maybe from now on i should join tables and only play if i win the button flip, and leave after playing my button? my BB/100 will skyrocket... seem like a good idea to you?

and i sincerely doubt the per hand EV advantage makes up for the time wasted in refusing to play people. i started datamining yesterday just to verify the fact.

anyway... i think it's pretty clear a lot of this would be avoided by making HU cash work more like SnGs inasmuch as a new table won't open up if there first one is 1/2, and there's no sitting out.

[ChicagoRy]

I wasn't saying you should wait around for the worst possible player, just to play in the juiciest game available, and to do anything else is kind of mind boggling to me (except in those cases I listed). I mean why play someone who is ok when a bad person is in another game?

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
it's nothing to do with pride. it has to do with being respectful and thinking about the good of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no "good of the game" in online poker. If think taking an EV hit is worth it in the long run for you, great. Others disagree. Forcing your view on them is immoral.

[ QUOTE ]
another example is a high limit game with one punter, who, upon sitting out, every single other person sits out too. +EV? maybe. but incredibly rude, and would probably kill action in the future if discovered.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree same situation. I would sit out and I think it's the right thing to do.

[ QUOTE ]
there are plenty of situations in poker where "nitty" behavior which, is +EV, is still wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it wrong? Poker is game. The score of which is money in your pocket. Unless you're doing something devious to acquire it, you're perfectly in the right to do anything you want. The players in this case aren't doing anything devious. They just won't play you.

[ QUOTE ]
maybe from now on i should join tables and only play if i win the button flip, and leave after playing my button?

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be devious. Hence, wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
my BB/100 will skyrocket... seem like a good idea to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I wanted my account closed.

[ QUOTE ]
and i sincerely doubt the per hand EV advantage makes up for the time wasted in refusing to play people.

[/ QUOTE ]

k You're entitled to that opinion and to play accordingly.

[ QUOTE ]
i started datamining yesterday just to verify the fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol So we'll be looking to that info in say...2 years? 'cause that's probably how long is going to take for you to prove any such thing statistically.

[ QUOTE ]
anyway... i think it's pretty clear a lot of this would be avoided by making HU cash work more like SnGs inasmuch as a new table won't open up if there first one is 1/2, and there's no sitting out.

[/ QUOTE ]

If players wanted to play limit HU SNG, they would. They do in NL. I don't want to see what you're suggesting, and I suspect the vast majority of good players don't want to see it either. Since the fish don't care, the likelihood of this happening is nil.

[mockturtle]

[ QUOTE ]


There's no "good of the game" in online poker. If think taking an EV hit is worth it in the long run for you, great. Others disagree. Forcing your view on them is immoral.


[/ QUOTE ]

immoral huh. immoral. interesting
[ QUOTE ]

I agree same situation. I would sit out and I think it's the right thing to do.


[/ QUOTE ]

if you really do that (not even waiting like a round, ten minutes, whatever to sit out) i would call you names everyday until the day i die. it's pretty much as rude to a punter as you can be without opening your mouth



[ QUOTE ]

How is it wrong? Poker is game. The score of which is money in your pocket. Unless you're doing something devious to acquire it, you're perfectly in the right to do anything you want. The players in this case aren't doing anything devious. They just won't play you.


[/ QUOTE ]

poker is chock full of gray areas in all sorts of ways that have turned into rules as time went on to keep the game from becoming too lame.

[ QUOTE ]

That would be devious. Hence, wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

it's not against the rules, so it's okay, right?


[ QUOTE ]
If I wanted my account closed.

[/ QUOTE ]

there's no cause for closing someone's account without a warning in that circumstance. furthermore, by extension i could only play when i won the first button toss, but play normal-ish sessions to cover it up. any limit heads up players knows no matter how good you lose in the BB and win oodles in the SB, and this would quite enthusiastically bolster my BB/100

[ QUOTE ]

k You're entitled to that opinion and to play accordingly.



[/ QUOTE ]

and i shall [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]


lol So we'll be looking to that info in say...2 years? 'cause that's probably how long is going to take for you to prove any such thing statistically.


[/ QUOTE ]

dur dur dur hey tell me plz i am 10bb/100 after 462 hands is that sustainable?

[ QUOTE ]

If players wanted to play limit HU SNG, they would. They do in NL. I don't want to see what you're suggesting, and I suspect the vast majority of good players don't want to see it either. Since the fish don't care, the likelihood of this happening is nil.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm sure it's the mediocre pros who really don't want to see it, since they'd be the ones fearful of playing better players.

i would guess the likelihood of this happening in some form is not nil. a hu SNG is different as the blinds rise and you can't quit at anypoint (the not quitting at any point is probably the #1 reason many "fish" don't play -- i suspect that more than 60% of the people i play against are planning to hit and run).

all the bs associated with heads up tables is probably the reason stars refuses to spread them (maybe party as well? i don't know i haven't loaded party in like two years). complaints of squatters (game choosers or just [censored]), hit and runners, and various shenanigans bog up support and sour customers. fixing those problems could possibly expose the heads up players to the two largest markets in online poker... would that be a bad thing, friend?