Full Tilt introduces "Beginners Only" Tables

[Dan Druff]

These are not nearly as bad as the segregation by winrate bullshit being done by Lock and Party, but still sets a bad precedent.

Here's how it works:

- As of April 16, 2013, all players have a "hand counter" that starts at zero

- Players with fewer than 2000 hands on the counter (regardless of how many hands they played before that, or their winrate) can sit at "Beginners Only" tables

- Players qualifying for Beginners Only tables can also sit at any other table if they want

- These are low limit tables only -- the highest is $10 max buyin NL.

- Once a player's counter hits 2000 hands (or 75 tournaments, whichever comes first), he can no longer sit at Beginners Only tables

My opinion:

This isn't a big deal because it only affects low limit games, and in fact it can have a positive effect because it will embolden fish to think they are better than they actually are. However, if they make this at any higher limits, again it will likely be abused by multi-accounters, and they will be defeating their own purpose of doing it.

In general, I just don't like segregation of players of any type. It's just counter to what poker is all about -- where the best player can sit with the worst player at any time, and vice versa.

I couldn't arrange a 1-on-1 basketball session with Lebron James, but if I wanted to, I could sit with Phil Ivey and Doyle Brunson virtually any time they're playing. That's the beauty of poker. It's everyone's game.

[PLOL]

I think it's okay only because they're not forced to play at beginners tables. They just have that option. So they can still go play with Phil Ivey if they so chose. But they should be careful about expanding it further because, as you pointed out, it could get abused by multi-accounters

[Sandwich]

I don't see any problem with this.
Gives beginners a chance to play with people who aren't mass multi-tabling +EV strategy for awhile.

[Corrigan]

of players of any type. It's just counter to what poker is all about -- where the best player can sit with the worst player at any time, and vice versa.

I couldn't arrange a 1-on-1 basketball session with Lebron James, but if I wanted to, I could sit with Phil Ivey and Doyle Brunson virtually any time they're playing. That's the beauty of poker. It's everyone's game.

well that's not exactly how it works online in last year or so. Analogy would be more like you show up at a neighborhood basketball court for pickup game. And the second you set foot on the court, half a dozen college basketball players want to play you. You say fuck this and go to another court, but all these guys follow you in their cars and will chase you from court to court never allowing you to play a pickup game with non-very skilled players.

The bumhunting has gotten ridiculous because the games have dried up. And I don't really blame sites for trying to protect their fish from just getting slaughtered by pros. Whether it's bodog's anonymous tables or the segregated tables (although they likely could do a better job segregating the tables) I can see why the sites want to do something

[Dan Druff]

of players of any type. It's just counter to what poker is all about -- where the best player can sit with the worst player at any time, and vice versa.

I couldn't arrange a 1-on-1 basketball session with Lebron James, but if I wanted to, I could sit with Phil Ivey and Doyle Brunson virtually any time they're playing. That's the beauty of poker. It's everyone's game.

well that's not exactly how it works online in last year or so. Analogy would be more like you show up at a neighborhood basketball court for pickup game. And the second you set foot on the court, half a dozen college basketball players want to play you. You say fuck this and go to another court, but all these guys follow you in their cars and will chase you from court to court never allowing you to play a pickup game with non-very skilled players.

The bumhunting has gotten ridiculous because the games have dried up. And I don't really blame sites for trying to protect their fish from just getting slaughtered by pros. Whether it's bodog's anonymous tables or the segregated tables (although they likely could do a better job segregating the tables) I can see why the sites want to do something

The difference here is that, if you were trying to avoid playing pick-up basketball against college jocks, one of them couldn't just put on a mask of a 50-year-old man and trick you into playing him anyway.

These "segregation" attempts, even the mostly harmless one here by Full Tilt, encourages people to break the rules and gain an unfair advantage of isolating themselves with the fish without having to deal with other pros. (That is, through multi-accounting.)

Basically they will punish people who follow the rules.

Now, if they stick to 10NL and below, that doesn't create a problem, but if it gets much higher, plenty of people will be circumventing it, and it will be very difficult to detect.

[Dan Druff]

So let's say Full Tilt raised the limits of these Beginners Only tables to something more worth my while, and let's also say the site was now legal in the US.

I could use my regular account for most of my play, and then I could get someone like Ken Scalir to set up an account for my "Beginners Play". So I would use Ken's account ONLY to play Beginnger's Tables, and mine for everything else. Once "Ken" reached 2000 hands, I would cash out, then get some other friend to set up a new account for me with a fresh counter at 0.

[garrett]

of players of any type. It's just counter to what poker is all about -- where the best player can sit with the worst player at any time, and vice versa.

I couldn't arrange a 1-on-1 basketball session with Lebron James, but if I wanted to, I could sit with Phil Ivey and Doyle Brunson virtually any time they're playing. That's the beauty of poker. It's everyone's game.

well that's not exactly how it works online in last year or so. Analogy would be more like you show up at a neighborhood basketball court for pickup game. And the second you set foot on the court, half a dozen college basketball players want to play you. You say fuck this and go to another court, but all these guys follow you in their cars and will chase you from court to court never allowing you to play a pickup game with non-very skilled players.

The bumhunting has gotten ridiculous because the games have dried up. And I don't really blame sites for trying to protect their fish from just getting slaughtered by pros. Whether it's bodog's anonymous tables or the segregated tables (although they likely could do a better job segregating the tables) I can see why the sites want to do something

Oo my, this is great.

[PLOL]

Except 2,000 hands is a really low number, so you'd pretty much need a new account every day

[gut]

might as well have a women only table also. No one lies on the internet....

[BeerAndPoker]

Stakes are super low with NL10 being the biggest and 2000 hands is nothing so it's not a big deal.

If they were to expand this to other stakes then it would suck BUT 2k hands still adds up fast AND it could actually benefit regular players later on while backfiring on the site.

For example : Say a newbie to poker plays their 2k hands and they aren't really good but since their competition was terrible along with some run good they come out a big winner at the stakes they are playing. This player now has the mentality of thinking they are GOD and moves up faster or even just don't run as well if playing the same stakes versus the rest of the player pool. This will hurt FTP if not enough players re-deposit by the newer players not playing hands contributing to rake.

[Steve-O]

of players of any type. It's just counter to what poker is all about -- where the best player can sit with the worst player at any time, and vice versa.

I couldn't arrange a 1-on-1 basketball session with Lebron James, but if I wanted to, I could sit with Phil Ivey and Doyle Brunson virtually any time they're playing. That's the beauty of poker. It's everyone's game.

well that's not exactly how it works online in last year or so. Analogy would be more like you show up at a neighborhood basketball court for pickup game. And the second you set foot on the court, half a dozen college basketball players want to play you. You say fuck this and go to another court, but all these guys follow you in their cars and will chase you from court to court never allowing you to play a pickup game with non-very skilled players.

The bumhunting has gotten ridiculous because the games have dried up. And I don't really blame sites for trying to protect their fish from just getting slaughtered by pros. Whether it's bodog's anonymous tables or the segregated tables (although they likely could do a better job segregating the tables) I can see why the sites want to do something

This sums it up perfectly.

I'll add that the anonymous nature of online poker also makes it near impossible for new players to even plant their feet before being chewed up and spit out by online grinders; a good analogy would be the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan, as soon as you sit at a table online you're fucked. The problem is that you and I might know who Leatherass9 or Nanonoko is, but to a new player it's just another screenname, they have no protection whatsoever. On the other hand, new players at a casino can at least see what they are walking into (as much as our eyes can tell us anyway) and as Corrigan points out they aren't going to be followed from table to table.

Online poker has turned into some extreme version of survival of the fittest.. unfortunately this is also killing the game's long-term prospects