Oooh, interesting idea. I think you’re right, though, that it wouldn’t happen. FTP doesn’t want to discourage people from getting games started.

Just to throw in another if-this-were-a-live-cardroom argument…

…one solution would be to charge heads-up players time instead of rake. That would include time camped out at the table while refusing to actually play.

Not gonna ‘appen, of course.

Thanks for the comment, grey. I certainly agree with your sentiment, but I’m not a big fan of using what would be acceptable in a live poker room as the standard by which rules for online poker should be set. Though similar, online poker is its own beast, not simply a derivative of the live game, and in my opinion ought to have its own standards based on what is appropriate for the medium.

There’s plenty of stuff like multi-tabling, short-handed play, HUD’s, and the new Rush Poker that doesn’t usually fly in a live setting but works great for online poker. There are other rules, like one player per hand, that ideally would be applied to online poker but where enforcement is so difficult that it’s arguably better not to have the rule at all.

Regardless of its viability or non-permissibility in live poker, nitsquatting is bad for online poker, and FTP ought not go out of their way to protect it. That’s my argument, anyway.

You sit down in a game, you get whoever is next on the waiting list. That is how it has always worked. If you don’t like your opponent, leave the table.

I realize that online this could lead to table hopping unless some restrictions are put in place, but I just really do not get why FTP thinks squatters who refuse to play have some ownership over that table.

Then again there’s a lot about FTP I don’t get, so maybe it’s me.

That helps, but they’re definitely still displaying in alphabetical order.

So if you have Arc, Bravo and Charlie…only Arc shows up if nobody’s playing you.

Think I fixed it, thanks for the heads up.