Poker suggestions amp improvements


Back to forum

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-02-17)
Poker : suggestions & improvements

A new thread to discuss possible improvements for Poker Holdem 'board', in example I've been asked to add the possibility to know the "rabbits (?!)", in another way the turn & the river even if a player folds after the flop, what do you think ?

Also, for those who prefer to know what is the next card just after having played, the "slow moves" option may be a good choice but it may be really too slow (do we really need to confirm a bet ?), your opinion is needed...

I'll probably add a button to open a new window displaying the previous move very soon.

Feel free if you have any other suggestion.

Don Groves    (2009-02-18 07:21:53)
Forget the "rabbits"

Why torture oneself with "what ifs?"

Don Groves    (2009-02-18 07:24:24)
Show the cards in place

At showdown, simply expose all the cards in their original positions, just like at a real table. No need to show each player's best hand. We can see that already. Should be easier to program also ;-)

Michael Sharland    (2009-02-18 20:44:23)
Show amount won in hand displays

Just a small enhancement, but it would be nice to see the amount of chips won at the conclusion of a hand without having to replay the hand or dig through the PGN.

Also, anthing that would make the PGN trail more readable would be great. Maybe organize it as more of a Hand History and include all shown cards as part of the data so that it can be reviewed independent of a game viewer.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-03 20:39:59)
Show the cards & history

Hi Don, well I don't know which solution is best, waiting for more opinions on this...

Michael, the PGN does not include the cards, actually displaying the history would take much more processor time that I prefer to save. You may also 'mouse over' the last move just below the board and you'll see the last moves played in title.

Also I just added an option : "V" in the 'move_express' (fast interface - for poker only yet), that opens a new window with an improved viewer to navigate into the game more easily... Feedbacks are welcome ;)

Michael Sharland    (2009-03-04 20:57:02)
Show the cards & history

I'll agree with Don that just showing the cards in place would be more intuitive and is what everybody is used to seeing.

As far as the viewer goes, I would say that it is a nice improvement but finding key hands is still very difficult when the history gets long. One should be able to more easily navigate through the history by hand rather than move. Also, it would be nice if the PGN did clearly demark where points are won so key hands can more easily be found.

Keep up the good work.

Nadia Kaif    (2009-03-20 05:28:46)
Not interested in poker

Not interested in poker

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-31 22:22:54)
Poker ratings

I've just changed the rating rules for Poker. I noticed that poker ratings moved really fast, most probably too fast. Also I think it is better to favour experience to new ratings, at least under a certain rating limit (just like Go rating rules). I'll keep an eye on ratings during a few months. Consequently now the poker rating rules are :

"The poker holdem rating list takes account of rated poker holdem games played at any time control.

If you have no poker rating, you have to play at least one rated poker holdem game to appear in the rating list. Poker holdem ratings are adjusted in real time after each result :

Performance = Opponent Current Rating + 350 if the game is won, -350 if the game is lost.

Case of a win (rating > 1999) : New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20
Case of a win (rating < 2000) : New Rating = ((18 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 20

Case of a loss : New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20

The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is superior to 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player.

In case of a loss against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Current Rating - 200."

Don Groves    (2009-03-31 22:39:35)
Poker ratings

The last time I checked the poker ratings list, I noticed a large number of players rated at 1800.

I thought the starting rating was 1600 except for players with a lot of previous experience. Have all these new players at 1800 asked for this higher rating?

This practice throws off the ratings for all of us who began at 1600 and have moved up by actually winning games on FICGS.

Don Groves    (2009-03-31 22:48:41)
Ratings lists

It would also make the ratings lists more meaningful to only list players who have actually entered tournaments. There are many in the rating lists who have not logged on since their first time here and who may never participate in an FICGS event. Why should they be shown in the ratings lists?

Nick Burrows    (2009-03-31 23:46:20)
general improvements

I agree that seeing 'rabbit' cards is a waste of space & distracting.
I also would prefer to just see the cards as they are, rather than the winning hand. It's very simple to see who has the best hand.
Scrolling back through a game is way too time consuming, i would play back thru games if there there was a 'viewer' similair to the chess analysis board, but as it is now is just like a hard record of the game.
Otherwise, i am greatly enjoying my poker games and has improved my enjoyment of the site immensely :-)
Many thanks, Nick.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-03-31 23:52:44)
Rating lists

Hi Don, I agree.. rating lists also show players who entered a provisional rating, actually I didn't think so many players would estimate themselves as advanced players when filling the registration form. Anyway this update should slowly solve the problem, question of weeks/months, 1800 is the same provisional rating as in chess, strong players should be able to reach 2000-2100 in a while.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-14 20:23:03)
Time control in Poker games, new rule ?

Hi all,

The first poker holdem games started a few months ago, it may be time to discuss new improvements around time controls in "correspondence" (> 1 day) poker games.

The problem is obviously that the dead man defence [to last the game until death when losing] could apply, at least theorically. In my opinion, we should try to find an idea to reduce the thinking time for the players who are in an inferior "position", or for both players, or maybe the maximum total time accumulated (now 100 days) and/or the time to play a single move (now 60 days)... well, actually there are many possibilities but I can't find one simple, clear & fair enough. To change the basic time control 30 days + 1 day/move would not be a good idea IMO, an inferior increment would bring problems also.

Ideas are welcome !

Don Groves    (2009-04-15 02:01:35)
Time controls

In all FICGS games, I think there should be an intermediate time control to prevent silent withdrawal, or what you call the "dead man defense."

If a player cannot make at least one move per week when not on vacation, the game should end.

If fewer than ten moves have been played, the game would not count in the ratings.

William Taylor    (2009-04-15 23:15:21)
Intermediate time control

Yes, perhaps the time limit for 1 move could be shortened. A week would be fine for poker games, I think, but (although I would almost always play a move in less than a week) I wouldn't favour the introduction of such a short time control in chess games. Regarding Don's proposal that the game would not be rated if fewer than ten moves had been played, it is of course theoretically possible to have a large or winning advantage after ten moves, and in such a situation it would seem unfair not to rate the game. (That's assuming that the player who won on time was also the one winning on the board).

William Taylor    (2009-04-15 23:17:37)

Forgive the brief off-topic post... How do you write in paragraphs in this forum? My blank lines are always automatically deleted when I click post or preview...

Nick Burrows    (2009-04-15 23:32:05)

It won't let me type the command without following it!

The instruction is at the top of this page to the right of 'Welcome to the forum & players blog.'

William Taylor    (2009-04-16 01:41:11)

I see!

Thanks Nick

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-17 00:55:56)
Intermediate time control

I'm not favourable to change the time per move limit or to change anything for chess & Go. In my opinion, we should add a tricky rule for poker games only to reduce their duration.

This rule may apply only in certain cases, what do you think ? In example, the player who has less chips and/or won rounds may have a reduced increment or a time penalty, something like that, but it must be fair enough... Thinking about it.

Don Groves    (2009-04-17 09:44:17)
Tricky rule?

I would rather speed up poker games by reducing them to best 2 of 3 than have such a rule. It is much easier to make up a deficit in poker than it is in either chess or go. If it is right for poker, why not then have such a rule for the player who is behind in chess or go? Make them either move faster or resign.

Scott Nichols    (2009-04-17 12:41:53)
Increase the blinds

A simple solution to shorten poker games is to increase the blinds to like every 20 moves the blinds double. This would put a lot more importance on every hand. This is what is done in major tournaments.

Nick Burrows    (2009-04-17 14:35:47)
increasing the blinds?

Poker tournaments, as they stand right now finish much quicker than even rapid chess tournaments.

The current blind structure is good because it encourages skill - which is the point of 'correspondance poker'.
The issue is rather about adjusting the time to penalise defence through inactivity.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-17 19:28:33)
Poker vs. Chess

I agree with Nick on this. 3 rounds & 100 chips by round is the only way to play "deep poker" IMHO (also to try to have significant ratings). In some cases, such a rule may work also for chess & Go, but it should probably be different as the number of moves is really different in each game, that's a problem. Let's try anyway.

Maybe the increment could not be added if the move has been played in more than a week (7 days), what do you think ? Not too hard and it may incitate to continue to play !?

Nick Burrows    (2009-04-17 19:46:43)

That is certainly an improvement, whether it is enough to solve people 'dying' is unclear.
Perhaps, change to this and see how it plays out.

Thibault de Vassal    (2009-04-18 22:37:46)
Time penalty

I'm afraid you're right. I have to find a more efficient rule :/

Michael Sharland    (2009-04-19 04:31:12)
Reduce the time bank maximum

If the goal is not to shorten games but to allow lost or abandoned games to conclude in a timely manner than the solution is simple. Just reduce the maximum time bank from 100 days to something much lower such as 20 days. This will force some level of steady play without changing the speed at which almost all games are played. A maximum of this level can be built to quickly but still allows for a temporary suspension of a game if life intrudes. I think this is a fair compromise.

Don Groves    (2009-04-19 08:21:09)
Ending abandoned games

This requires more programming for our already overworked director, but how about having the system send an email to anyone who has not played a move in a certain (to be determined) time period asking if that player intends to continue the game and requesting that s/he resign if the answer is no?

The message could also request an RSVP and, if no response is forthcoming, the game is ended. This handles a common situation in Internet games where a player enters some games, then after a short time never returns to the site.

This seems like a reasonable thing to do and it doesn't change any existing rules or time controls.