Playing normal tables and zoom is quiet a world apart , i usually play zoom, but on very few occasions i have tried normal tables, and game is totally different, it has table dynamics, history between 2 players and different things are to be considered, whilst playing zoom is more of like playing a hand in vacuum, ability to click fold 20 times in 20 seconds makes you keep playing very strong ranges, while on normal table it would look like  for half an hour you don't open a hand to play at all, which would be really unacceptable 

Idk why problems they wanna solve like scripting no action etc they do solve on expense of such a big player pool playing normal tables

Anything done with enforcing restriction usually doesn't have long term benefits

What they do need is action , and they will get it by interesting more people to play poker - unfortunately many lost after black friday and its consequences , and sad fact that imo hasn't been overcomed in years after

Maybe solution is reaching the people in all other countries to get interested in play, because unlike USA where game has roots and spread among population, it is not the case with the rest of the world, which is really big and may fulfill this gap, but it is something to work on, not a thing that will happen just because stars want it

i don't believe those measures will improve action at all, and its really sad fact that i often open full tilt and can't find anything running at all worth watching. Considering that even after all this time site is not running even remotely close to what it has been, maybe good idea is simply to merge it back to stars and close it ( don't hang me for suggesting this ) and at least that lil action going on there move to where most ppl are

Watching high stakes on Stars and thrill of it  maybe will encourage lower stakes players to give it a try and involve themselves in a lil riskier situation that will maybe hurt them short-term but will benefit them in long run when they overcome obstacles of changing stakes and improve them as players

Seeing people progress is also motivational for ppl to approach game differently

And i just checked, Total number of people on ftilt at moment is 10 k and on stars 100 k

Imo nothing in reasonable time  term can make tilt running, and i think this 10 k ppl are needed to improve stars

This is bizarre.  Sure, easy enough to see why they're doing it.  But I have a hard time seeing how it can be the best solution available.  

I think this is one of the only ways to save the integrity of the game and let people just play poker.  I'm a big fan of this decision, though starting at 50/100 instead of 25/50 is going to lead to small player pools and therefore may convince them that their good decision was a bad one.

As someone who plays about 90% Zoom on Stars and doesn't bumhunt, I think this is a bad decision.
Regular tables are different, and they will artificially change the games.
Of course they want more hands, but forcing it in such a way that the games and players have to switch their game for Stars' profit is ridiculous.

I don't see why regs would stop bumhunting now, or why more people would be inclined to play high stakes.
Anonymous tables would be better than what they've proposed here.

Zoom is a different game than a normal ring game. Why not have 1 big lobby per stake and randomly sit you and if you choose not to play then sit you out for a certain amount of time. That way it forces you to play who you're sat with or you're sitting on the side lines. Party Poker in NJ has went to this type of lobby for all cash games. I thought it was really dumb at first, but it makes sense in the big scheme of things.

Im in US and cant comment on the help Zoom will provide. 

I can say that I severly dislike Zoom format. Less facets to employ skill.

Less tilt opportunities, less game flow, less player reads, less discipline required, Less personal/competitive, less emotional

Less spots to win battles of reciprocity.

I don't think that zoom is something very different than normal tables. 

(1)Tilt opportunities - i don't think so. players might be a little bit tighter but game is so fast that if a weaker soul gets 4-5 bad beats in a row i've seen them loose control and spew too hard. Also if u tilt in zoom u can loose ALOT of $$.

(2)Game flow,dynamics etc - I see alot of ppl saying that, personally i don't believe it, i ve played a serious amount of zoom500/200 and i can certainly say i have build dynamics vs some regs. Yes you won't play in the same table with 6 specific opponents but you play 5x as many hands (maybe more) so histories can build pretty fast. Also the game fundamentals are the same. Against fishes i believe everyone gets their chance. Yes those who 4x Zoom have more chances to play against the fish but lets face it its alot worse on regular tables. 

(3) Player reads - As i said i've played a serious amount of hands in ZOOM i can say i have more than 25k hands sample vs certain players which if i'm smart and observant i can use against them (even without a hud) 

(4) Discipline - I don't believe that because of (1)

(5) Competitive - Completely disagree on that one. In Zoom , u can't bumhunt yes you can check the lobby and if u feel it is weak join but no one guarentees you that the action won't get tougher in the next 15mins. Everyone is forced to play vs everyone. Some of the sickest graphs i've seen are from bumhuntes who i'd never say are elite players. Zoom is far more gently competitive than todays normal games.

(6) Less emotional - (1) + in Zoom you often have a +6 BI upswing and 20min later u get a -10 BI downswing (if the right people playing ;) ) . i would say that is emotional.

(7) Less spots to win battles of reciprocity - I'll have to agree with that. 

However i wouldn't say all this for high stakes games too , i've never played them and i don't know how they run but from my experience it would be good if everything from 1k and below was zoom considering the situation of today's normal games. 

"I like having constant position on an opponent and attempting to abuse him/her whilst trying to avoid getting killed by the guy/girl to my left."

Yeah i guess the perfect game for all of us would be if we had position on the loose fishes and have some tight regs to our left. But that has nothing to do with fairness. In Zoom games everyone gets the chance to have the fish to their right but sometimes the loose crusher to their left too. That's fairness that's how poker should be played. Even opportunities for everyone.

 I'm sorry if u don't like to play with a disadvantage but sometimes that's how it goes. You could get a lot better playing like that as well..

"Watching someone's play alter hand-by-hand is one of the most enjoyable aspects of the game"

I understand that but i don't think it's such a big deal as you can still watch previous hands play out.

Last thing i want to say is , technology evolves maybe 10 years ago some of us played without any trackers without even betting slider options or 4 color deck. Things changed , yes its weird to fast fold doesn't feel right in the beginning but in the end its pretty much the same thing guys...

I think you should focus on how to make ZOOM better like convincing PStars that they should take less rake in ZOOM tables because games might dry out faster with zoom (1Z table = 4x normal) and other stuff but trying to convince them to remove ZOOM ? why ? Do you like getting hit n runned ? Do you like mediocre bumhunters and ppl who use seating programs make more money than you (who might be 5x better ?) Do you like games instant break when the fish busts ? 

Yes there are some things that should be made but i strongly believe zoom is for the best. 

In many respects it's the same game, but at the end of the day it isn't. It destroys the dynamics of the game. In a normal setting you can't fast fold bad hands, mediocre hands, or OOP. Why on Earth would you want to force bad players to play better? (at least as far as starting hands/ position goes) Sure, some will spew just as much, but they also lose faster which means they are more likely to never come back. The ones that stay are going to adjust their starting ranges when they start bleeding money.

Changing every cash game to Zoom is a terrible idea. It seperates online poker from poker. Where else is zoom applicable? 95% of tournaments aren't played this way, 95% of online cash games aren't played this way, and you can't reproduce it in a live setting where most people start playing.

I see nothing wrong with offering Zoom, I even play it from time to time, but forcing the cash games this way? C'mon....

I disagree with the people that Zoom removes the strategy element. I think it's an interesting form of poker that requires another type of skill. Sure, it becomes more "video-game-esque" because of the speed, but you also get to the long term quicker, and of course, it removes the seat/table hopping problem. 

I've played very little Zoom, but used to grind a ton of Rush back in the day, and one thing I liked was how the positions and stack sizes were constantly changing. Sometimes in "regular" poker, it can be frustrating if you have a tough/aggro player on your direct left on a couple of tables, and you are handcuffed for the entire session. Zoom is cool because you are constantly being tested in a variety of scenarios: IP/OOP with different stack sizes against a variety of players. So in this way, I think it levels the playing field substantially. 

Zoom makes you feel more like a robot. Awful!

only the mediocre bumhunters are crying

I really don't understand when people say zoom doesn't have table dynamics, player history...

I think it actually has MORE and more potential for it. As if you are 3-4 tabling zoom with a player pool of 40-180 during a given session you get to experience the same players, in different scenarios (eg stack, position, dynamics of the other players) very frequently.. so if you want to really well you are constantly adjusting to this as the more you play the more you understand the tendencies of the other players.

I've been playing more zoom lately and enjoying it, it certainly still has dynamics as you'll be seated with the same players a lot of the time. I also feel you may be able to exploit badder players more often if theyre less likely to remember you then you can target them more often before they adjust. They'll often take the same lines against you without realising it and if theyre running without a HUD will be limping/calling a whole lot more in ZOOM than a regular table

I still like standard table games though and would hate to be forced to play zoom only. I dont play high enough to comment on weather or not its good for stopping seating scripts etc but I feel zoom has its place in PLO

I guess most people here talk about the 1-2 and 2-5 Zoom games...

But this Thread was about forcing 10k PLO and NL to Zoom and possibly all High stakes games in the future.

I was thinking about boycottoing 10k Zoom because I thought that it only served Stars in making more Rake by making 20 Regs play with 1 fish instead of 5 vs 1 and 15 on the waitlist.
So I thought at the end of the day its bad for most players.

But I treid it out anyways, I played quite some hours of 10k Zoom and I really like it!
- Its fair and easy to join games. You dont have to be fast or use annoying programs to get the good seats.
- you can take break whenever you like and how long you like. I really like that I dont have try sit out at all tables at once and make a 2-4 min break hoping not to loose any seats. You can even take a shit now ;)
- the games run actually pretty often and dont feel super tough. I would guess wuite some more hands than normal games before.
- of course that line ups are tougher than before because before people would only play when a fish played. But I think most players dont mind to play a bit Reg vs Reg since the Rake at 10k is not that high. I believe many Regs insta quit after the fish leaves mostly because they know the game will break and not because they are afraid to play on a bit tougher line ups in the hopes to have a weaker player hopp in. So Zoom actually solves this problem pretty nice (while stars makes more rake, which is fine for me)