Do you agree with this?

If yes, please raise your voice in the thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...eting-1259395/

Are you sure rec players are annoyed with it? Seems like they buy in for the min more than anyone...

I never saw what was wrong with when the games were split in to short, normal and deep ante. Sure there was a ton of shallow games running but that just shows what there is demand for. I think it could be a pretty big mistake to stop people buying in short when thats what the recreational players seem to love.

Whats wrong with 10-30bb / 60-100bb / and 100-250a system?

The biggest contributors at midstakes and higher who redeposit and come back prefer buying for the maximum and hate shortstackers.

I have no problem with recs buying in for the minimum because they stay at the tables when they get deep. Then again, there's no difference to them if the min buy in is 30 or 50 or higher, they'll just sit wherever is possible. Ratholing is the real problem. Pro shortstackers leach off fullstack regulars and rec players, make the games less enjoyable for the recreationals and make them feel cheated when a player doubles up and leaves. Plus, their presence at the tables make the game a lot more nittier which means lower VPIP and less rake for PokerStars.

Pro shortstackers change tables and open new ones all the time. There are much more open seats at this kind of tables, that's why recs sit there. That doesn't mean that they prefer them, they just don't want to wait. They see that most at the table play a 30bb stack and that's why they buy in for 30. But then again, they don't leave when they get deeper.

PLO is a very small player pool, segregating it is not the right way to go. I even feel it'll be better to have only one kind of tables.

I don't see it as segregating - people can play whatever they want. Its not like you're limited to one choice of game. I just see it as offering more choice.

If ratholing is the problem then surely just extending the ratholiing timer would make that situation better

I just don't believe this is true.
I'd like to see the min buyin upped, but you need better arguments- at the moment your points are just an opinion and have no real merit to them.
The main proof of what people prefer is how many games run of each type and at the moment it's prob over 90% short rather than deep at 5/10 plus.

So you preferred to read just the first sentence of my opinion. This is your choice.

What are the arguements of the people that want the system to stay? Do you feel that games are good and sustainable for a long time at the current system?

does anyone actually still rathole? afaik, more recs leave when they get a big stack than regs by a long way...

I think PS had it right when they offered 20-50 and 50-100. 20-50bb were softer and a more splashy game. Then they f'ed it up by trying to combine both (what was the point srsly), and now all the games are meh.

Is the plo pool that small compartively now? I rarely look at the NL lobby, but when i do it seems the same, or maybe even less active than the plo tables.

I just dont think theres enough evidence for stars to change things. The ecology seems good atm and given shorting reduces skill disparity, doesnt that mean lower winrates = less people going bust = longer ecology?

Also, I think you see far more shorty regs starting tables/games vs each other than full stackers, due to them basically flipping, as apposed to one of them being at a disadvantage if they were starting 100bbs. This is just an observation, so may not be true.

Regards ratholing- the best shorties at 25/50- jeans, Nchan, ocrop,etc dont leave when they double for the most part. They just buy in short to begin with. There are some who rathole for sure, but they generally never get back into a game due to the time constraint and if a fish happened to get onto that table noone would give up their seat and the waitlist would be 10+.


Id much prefer stars to work on ways to encourage people to start games more, reduce the incessant bumhunting hunting and predatory feel the games have at the moment.

I explained you the logic behind it in my post above. You have to forget for a moment that you're a shortstacker and to look at the games objectively. Do you think that 30bb PLO is a system that can sustain itself for years with the rake as it is? Because sooner or later everyone will start playing with 30bb, I see more and more fullstackers turn into shortstackers. Then we'll all be trapped by the rake and the games will die.

Now ask yourself. What is better for you as a shortstacker? To have a 50bb min buy in and still have a slight structural advantage over 100bb stack or all these competent fullstackers to begin playing 30bb stack?

Are you for real? It's like 8 to 10 times smaller player pool. Just look at the numbers from PokerScout at any given time of the day.

Texas Hold'em
Structure Active Tables Full Tables Active Players
Fixed Limit 330 220 1990
Pot Limit 43 22 309
No Limit 2630 2113 17706

Omaha
Structure Active Tables Full Tables Active Players
Pot Limit 388 316 2073

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fast-Fold Poker -- Hold'em
Structure Active Tables Full Tables Active Players
No Limit 13 0 4995

Fast-Fold Poker -- Omaha
Structure Active Tables Full Tables Active Players
Pot Limit 5 0 755

First I'm pretty sure 30bb is more sustainable than 100bb, which has a lot more people going bust.
I think I PTR'd you before and see a winrate of something like 2BB/100, and if you are achieving this winrate playing full stack, I'd recommend you playing shorter, as you can achieve the same thing with much lesser variance, just a thought.

Personally I'm a midstacker so I wouldn't mind min buyin going up to 50bb. But I'm sure the game will get worse, which I don't want to see.

Is that high stakes antchev?

Or 5/10 plus. I don't doubt there's millions more micro Holdem games. This is of course important too, I just didn't know the Holdem high stakes games still ran as much.

This is all the tables. You know, poker is not only high stakes. As a matter of fact, without low and small stakes high stakes will be pretty much non-existant in no time.

I get it, you're just a troll with no arguements. You're scared of change because you're afraid you won't win anymore. Guess what, soon you won't be winning either way because games evolve whether you want it or not.

And don't worry about my winrate, I have my wife to do this job for me and she insist on playing the big stack

Anchev

Lol ya, I'm sure this will encourage reasonable argument.

joelingram, can u just start a frickin 6max game with me? If no one comes i 30 hands then leave?

not allowed, have to give 1k if do right now

you hu special anyway, not 6 player

im not a HU specialist scouting for action at 6max tables, if thats what you meant.. I have more 6max hands than HU this year and literally 99.5% of them came from me starting a table with someone. All Im saying is play for 10 minutes. Games usually fill within like 5 minutes, and maybe u lose like 10$ in EV or something if you play slowly, and hey we both get a good 6max game to play in, maybe even a deep ante one!! I mean I dont get mad about some guys who sit out, because its obvious they are just worthless bumhunters. But I see you starting games with other regs, so wtf, just play for a few hands