Cash Games Feedback

[kinboshi]

Some good feedback in this thread, and of course it's also good that DTD want this feedback in order to offer the best cash games they can.

As a recreational player who's there mostly at the weekend (as with many I'd guess?) I think there needs to be some way of getting the cash games running earlier. Quite often it can take a good hour or so for a game to start up on a Friday evening.  The 2/5 players seem to be 'organised' and a game can be scheduled to start at 8 with a list of players with their names on it. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to do that for the 1/2 game (also a cap on this game makes a lot of sense to me in order to keep the 1/2 games active and thriving - with a specified reload size based on the largest stack) and get some regulars in early doors that will lead to the games running consistently from earlier in the evening, rather than taking until well after 10pm before a game can be guaranteed.

I like the current spread of games.  The .50/1 is ideal for beginners - and it makes sense to have no straddle or a limited straddle for this game so everyone playing it can sit comfortably and learn the game without feeling uncomfortable. The 1/1 game is a good transition before the larger 1/2 game - and many players will switch between these two games.  I don't know about the bigger games, so not my place to comment.

If there are times when the cash games are regularly quiet, or the tables start to break, then it might be sensible to focus any promotions for these times.  'Happy hour' with reduced or no rake early in the evening to help get games going, or later in the night when people are considering leaving. Of course, if it affects the revenue too much and doesn't make sense commercially then it should be a non-starter.  Bad beat bonuses are seen as fun by many, and people who play elsewhere certainly seem to notice the lack of them at DTD. Not sure I like the idea of increased rake to pay for these though (which is surely the only way they can be funded)?

I like playing 8-handed instead of 9-handed. BUT, when a table is limited to 8 seats, it often plays with 6 or 7 players (as people sit out to go to the loo, get a drink, have a fag, or when a player leaves and there's a bit of a time gap between then and the next player sitting down).  This means the tables can be more likely to break. So although I like the 8-handed tables it might actually make more sense to have them run 9-handed?

[EvilPie]

Julian

You are absolutely right.

Run it twice is very very bad for the game in so many ways.

Disagree. Obviously there would have to be criteria for doing so to avoid it happening with every all-in, but it's not suggested very often anyway. Regs will use it sparingly and it the right situations, fish will get it all-in lighter because they know they have a chance of seeing ten cards and not five which is more exciting for them. Tried and tested.

Maybe if the pot is above a certain value or summat? 1k maybe?

maybe look to make it fair across all games.. 400bb??

Easiest thing would be to let them do it as often as they want but just rake both pots.

Should keep it down to a minimum.

[zerofive]

Julian

You are absolutely right.

Run it twice is very very bad for the game in so many ways.

Disagree. Obviously there would have to be criteria for doing so to avoid it happening with every all-in, but it's not suggested very often anyway. Regs will use it sparingly and it the right situations, fish will get it all-in lighter because they know they have a chance of seeing ten cards and not five which is more exciting for them. Tried and tested.

Maybe if the pot is above a certain value or summat? 1k maybe?

maybe look to make it fair across all games.. 400bb??

Easiest thing would be to let them do it as often as they want but just rake both pots.

Should keep it down to a minimum.

Can't think of a worse idea.

[Woodsey]

Julian

You are absolutely right.

Run it twice is very very bad for the game in so many ways.

Disagree. Obviously there would have to be criteria for doing so to avoid it happening with every all-in, but it's not suggested very often anyway. Regs will use it sparingly and it the right situations, fish will get it all-in lighter because they know they have a chance of seeing ten cards and not five which is more exciting for them. Tried and tested.

Maybe if the pot is above a certain value or summat? 1k maybe?

maybe look to make it fair across all games.. 400bb??

Easiest thing would be to let them do it as often as they want but just rake both pots.

Should keep it down to a minimum.

Can't think of a worse idea.

I would fully expect nit poker players to say that, I don't think its the worst idea either tbh.

[iangascoigne]

Julian

You are absolutely right.

Run it twice is very very bad for the game in so many ways.

Disagree. Obviously there would have to be criteria for doing so to avoid it happening with every all-in, but it's not suggested very often anyway. Regs will use it sparingly and it the right situations, fish will get it all-in lighter because they know they have a chance of seeing ten cards and not five which is more exciting for them. Tried and tested.

Sean I know you don't mean it but the use of the term ' fish' is one of the things that puts off recreational players.

[SuuPRlim]

Sean I know you don't mean it but the use of the term ' fish' is one of the things that puts off recreational players.

Agree 100%, it's a horrible expression and defo needs out of poker.

[Honeybadger]

Sean I know you don't mean it but the use of the term ' fish' is one of the things that puts off recreational players.

Agree 100%, it's a horrible expression and defo needs out of poker.

Agree totally. I have been trying hard not to use this term for a long time. Even just 'thinking' about poker in terms of there being 'fish' is completely the wrong way to go about things. It fosters a lack of respect, and stops you seeing poker in the right way.

[Honeybadger]

Rob, just in case DTD ever considers introducing a must-move system... the following is a GENIUS was of implementing it. Can't believe this is not the standard method already:

I also use a must move system, but slightly different. I ask them in list order who would like to move to the other table, then if none of them want to move I make the person last on the list the person who must move. Just seems fairer that the person who is most probably the least involved in that game is the person who hasn't been there the longest? Also if no-one has left the main game for 2 hours whilst there is a feeder. The feeder becomes a game in it's own right, if people still want to move then the list is re-activated to balance tables.

[zerofive]

Julian

You are absolutely right.

Run it twice is very very bad for the game in so many ways.

Disagree. Obviously there would have to be criteria for doing so to avoid it happening with every all-in, but it's not suggested very often anyway. Regs will use it sparingly and it the right situations, fish will get it all-in lighter because they know they have a chance of seeing ten cards and not five which is more exciting for them. Tried and tested.

Maybe if the pot is above a certain value or summat? 1k maybe?

maybe look to make it fair across all games.. 400bb??

Easiest thing would be to let them do it as often as they want but just rake both pots.

Should keep it down to a minimum.

Can't think of a worse idea.

I would fully expect nit poker players to say that, I don't think its the worst idea either tbh.

If you rake it twice nobody is going to go for it. Even whatever Ian, Dave and Stu want to unanimously entitle players that don't play for a living, and players that play even less so for a living are going to object to being raked twice.

Explain why raking it twice is a good idea. Might as well rake 50% and we should just fade the poker and go and lump stacks on red or black. Or we could all just turn up, give our money to the club and go home? That would save any enjoyment or disappointment from actually playing the game and would save a lot of time too.

Recreational thinkers imo.

[pleno1]

come on this is common sense, DTD should without doubt be happy to run it once from a purely poker ecology pov.

What is the main problem atm? There are no games.. "everybody is busto" "skint" "going bsto quicker"

running it twice allows people to STAY ALIVE LONGER thus meaning they rake MORE lifetime.

[david3103]

Julian

You are absolutely right.

Run it twice is very very bad for the game in so many ways.

Disagree. Obviously there would have to be criteria for doing so to avoid it happening with every all-in, but it's not suggested very often anyway. Regs will use it sparingly and it the right situations, fish will get it all-in lighter because they know they have a chance of seeing ten cards and not five which is more exciting for them. Tried and tested.

Maybe if the pot is above a certain value or summat? 1k maybe?

maybe look to make it fair across all games.. 400bb??

Easiest thing would be to let them do it as often as they want but just rake both pots.

Should keep it down to a minimum.

Can't think of a worse idea.

I would fully expect nit poker players to say that, I don't think its the worst idea either tbh.

If you rake it twice nobody is going to go for it. Even whatever Ian, Dave and Stu want to unanimously entitle players that don't play for a living, and players that play even less so for a living are going to object to being raked twice.

Explain why raking it twice is a good idea. Might as well rake 50% and we should just fade the poker and go and lump stacks on red or black. Or we could all just turn up, give our money to the club and go home? That would save any enjoyment or disappointment from actually playing the game and would save a lot of time too.

Recreational thinkers imo.

Pretty sure the 'rake it twice' wasn't intended to be taken seriously

[zerofive]

Julian

You are absolutely right.

Run it twice is very very bad for the game in so many ways.

Disagree. Obviously there would have to be criteria for doing so to avoid it happening with every all-in, but it's not suggested very often anyway. Regs will use it sparingly and it the right situations, fish will get it all-in lighter because they know they have a chance of seeing ten cards and not five which is more exciting for them. Tried and tested.

Maybe if the pot is above a certain value or summat? 1k maybe?

maybe look to make it fair across all games.. 400bb??

Easiest thing would be to let them do it as often as they want but just rake both pots.

Should keep it down to a minimum.

Can't think of a worse idea.

I would fully expect nit poker players to say that, I don't think its the worst idea either tbh.

If you rake it twice nobody is going to go for it. Even whatever Ian, Dave and Stu want to unanimously entitle players that don't play for a living, and players that play even less so for a living are going to object to being raked twice.

Explain why raking it twice is a good idea. Might as well rake 50% and we should just fade the poker and go and lump stacks on red or black. Or we could all just turn up, give our money to the club and go home? That would save any enjoyment or disappointment from actually playing the game and would save a lot of time too.

Recreational thinkers imo.

Pretty sure the 'rake it twice' wasn't intended to be taken seriously

Neither was the "give all our money to the club and go home," just to clarify. Sorry Rob.

[cambridgealex]

I'm going to start trending the term "non-pros" and see if I can get it to stick.

[gouty]

I'm going to start trending the term "non-pros" and see if I can get it to stick.

Nice term

Will work for loads of pros I know.

[titaniumbean]

I'm going to start trending the term "non-pros" and see if I can get it to stick.

Nice term

Will work for loads of pros I know.