Replay should keep track of the average amount of time it takes a player to make a move (check, bet, raise, call, or fold).
At the beginning of all multi-table tournaments, the slowest players should all start the tourney on the same table (I think one slow table should be good), until players get knocked out and tables need to be consolidated. In other words, make the slowest players play against each other. Any thoughts on whether this is a good idea or not?
Enjoy running out the clock every turn? That’s awesome. Now you can play against a table full of people just like you.
uncle-jimmy
I know its frustrating when a player does that but you have to keep in mind that some players need more time because they may have a disability or slow internet.
It’s a mixture of reasons. Some are disabled or have slow internet. Some have problems with the site. Some are playing more games at one time than they can handle. For some, it’s a strategy, and some people just want to watch the world burn. Regardless of the reason, I still think this is a good idea, and you haven’t changed my mind, but I appreciate your insight.
Replay poker gives everyone the same amount of time. It should not affect you the way they use their tiime, They are not abusing anything.
I’ve seen people type “zzz” after 2 seconds have pass, hope you are not one of them.
This will make people to manipulate the algorithm to play vs those players and thus will have an unfair edge over the rest of the field. So it is a bad idea.
There are fast tournaments - it will say (fast) at the top of the screen. If you do not enjoy waiting, play those
Unfair advantage? Please explain. Every player wins a certain percentage of hands played, depending on their skill. For example, a player who only plays premium hands would win a higher percentage of hands played than someone who constantly calls with rags. There are other variables, but you get the idea. The average number of poker hands per hour on a table is 30. Basic math dictates that that if the game is slowed down to 10 hands per hour, then you win less hands. The ones who are not on the slow table would have the unfair advantage, therefore players would speed up their game so they would not be stuck on the slow table.
After a certain amount of time when tables get consolidated due to players getting knocked out, here is the scenario. On the slow table, one player got knocked out. So after starting with 3,000 in chips, the average chip stack on the slow table is a little below 3.400. The average chip stack for the rest of the field is 7,500 or higher. Any players from the slow table would be short-stacked when the tables are consolidated. The advantage goes to the rest of the field.
@uncle-jimmy I don’t mean to be antagonistic, but do you really think there’s any chance Replay will adopt this suggestion? It seems highly unrealistic to me, good idea or not.
If I have a huge edge vs 8 slow players, I will play all my hands really slow so in future tournaments I get seated at their table since I will know that Replay poker loves to group them together. While the rest of the players will be seated at random. Can you see how people will take advantage of what you are suggesting?
Also poker is not white and black, I believe that you know that if we are dealt 100k hands and you end up with 60% of winning hands and I end up with 20% of winning hands, at the end of the sample size I can have more money at the end than you just because I consistently made “superior decisions”.
You’re saying what’s possible. I’m saying what’s probable. Big difference.
It’s possible you can win a hand calling with 7-2 off suit. It’s probable that you won’t.
The difference between turbo and regular tables is the time limit on the game clock. On regular tables you have 20 seconds to take your action, while on the turbo tables you only have 10 seconds to take your action.
I know Replay is having a hard time getting players to play the 7-card stud tournaments. I love playing 7-card stud, but hardly ever play these tourneys because for some reason, these tourneys attract A LOT of slow players. I don’t play because it isn’t enjoyable to play.
By doing nothing to the slow players, and insinuating I should seek out Turbo games if I don’t like it, Replay is losing players like me in some tournaments. I’ve never heard someone say they won’t play a tournament because they’re not allowed to kill the clock every turn without taking a penalty.
Unfortunately, this is just the nature of the game. There’s nothing anyone can, or should, do about it.
I think it’s loosely analogous to the difference between enforcement via the law, and enforcement via social pressure. It is legal to drive 3-5mph below the speed limit everywhere you go, which is good; it would be calamitous if people could be stopped by the police just for driving a little too slowly for comfort. But if you are such a driver, you may find you do not enjoy your experience on the road as many other drivers will honk at you, your friends may give you a hard time, et cetera. This is as it should be: we enact laws to enforce the bright-line distinction between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and leave it to individuals to enforce via social pressure those more subtle distinctions that would not be appropriate to codify into the law.
If I have the right to think for 20 seconds in one instance, I have that right in every instance. It’s unlikely that this is appropriate to do every time, but legislating that distinction would be both pragmatically difficult (if not impossible), and also just plain wrong.
A few months ago a player I shall not name was quite clearly deliberately running the clock down every time it was their turn. I won’t speak to their ostensible motives, but “we” could all easily infer what was going on. Everyone at the table started complaining, with varying degrees of civility. Eventually, the player simply stopped coming to tournaments. The community had repeatedly voiced their disapproval of this player’s behavior, and when they didn’t change that behavior, we made it so unpleasant for them to continue abusing the rules in this way that they eventually just gave up.
I think this is totally fine—or at least, the best we can hope to do.
Where would the cutoff be? If I happen to face 6 difficult decisions in a row, should I have to fear being relegated to the dreaded Slow Table? You yourself posit that being placed at this table would be disadvantageous; would your proposed policy not therefore create a potential moral hazard by at least sometimes punishing players just for arbitrarily running into X thought-provoking spots in a short span of time?
Sometimes I may seem slow to make a move because I am having trouble with the site. Compared to the ones who kill the clock every turn, I know that I am not in danger of being relegated to the slow table. My average time is still miles ahead of theirs. 6 difficult decisions in a row would not be enough to move you to the slow table.
@Younguru I’m not ignoring your previous comments. I’m just trying to stay on topic. The topic I have chosen to stay on is whether or not my idea is a good idea. The option of turbo games, and the odds of Replay adopting my idea is irrelevant to my idea being good or bad. Your comments are appreciated, even if I don’t respond to them.
OK, second pragmatic worry:
How often will there be enough of these players to populate a full table? You can’t run a fair tournament with artificially unbalanced tables. If there are two nine-seaters and one “slow” table where only three seats are filled, now you’ve got 85% of the field playing 9max and 15% playing 3max.
I’m talking about the average tournament, where there are more tables than that. The cutoff would be up to Replay, but I agree. You can’t have a slow table when there are only 2 tables to start with.
It doesn’t matter how many tables there are; what matters is how many slow players there are. I don’t see this behavior very often at all. I’m skeptical that there would be more than 2-3 of these players per tournament, period, even if the field is 45+ entrants
I’m saying for your proposal to even begin to be fair/serviceable, we would need to have an AVERAGE of at least 8 ultra-slow clock runners per tournament.
Apparently we have had different experiences. It’s rare for me to be on a table that doesn’t have at least 1 or 2 players run the clock to within 3 seconds of expiration. Maybe Replay doesn’t like me, and they stick me on those tables on purpose? I really don’t know how else to respond to your statement, except to say that I disagree.
I guess I’m still not appreciating the severity of your exigency re: time management.
I thought we were exclusively targeting players who run the clock down as a tactic to waste time/artificially “shorten” the tournament by ensuring everyone at their table sees fewer hands.
It seems you’re including players who simply take a long time to think, on average. There’s no justification for punishing those players; if I understand your position correctly, I find it fundamentally unsound and reject your worry altogether.
Again, the recourse for “I don’t like it when players think a long time on every decision” is to play turbo games. “I signed up for a tournament where the time limit is 20 seconds, and you are using those 20 seconds every time it’s your turn because that’s how long it takes you to make a decision, and I don’t like that” is not a valid grievance.
Finally, sometimes when I am playing “super serious” (mostly if I have entered a 2.5M or 5M buy-in tournament, where I care more about chips won/lost), I will let my time run for every single decision to avoid giving off timing tells. This is a legitimate (and in real $ games, quite common/prevalent) element of strategy that should not be legislated out of the game.