It's been almost 6 weeks since the min/max buyins were changed at PokerStars. What do you think of the impact on the high stakes (10-20+) games?

Thanks for taking the time to offer feedback.

Seems like not much has changed except that the SS games run a bit more often and then fullstack runs a bit less often.

Just bc I know you guys are reading this thread, if you want there to be more action do something about PTR and let everyone remake their names.

yw

Care to start a thread like this in Midstakes, since that seems to be the most affected limits.

.

.

speaking from a PLO perspective, it has made the 20-50BB games about 75% of the games that run at 25/50, which is pretty frustrating. honestly, the way that the PLO games were before the changes were infinitely better than what they are now. 50-100BB tables are ideal; the other extreme ends of the spectrum are more or less unnecessary IMO.

stars will clearly never get rid of shortdonkers bc of rake generating. But stars sure as hell should have made the shallow tables 20-35bb.

I think the changes have been fine, but stars had the opportunity to handle the whole situation a lot better. As everyone has been saying since the new changes were released, 20-50 bbs is just too wide a range. 50bb stacks (who can't profitable just 3bet shove preflop) can still get exploited by 20bb stacks, so the shortstacking problem hasn't been solved completely yet. That said, the increase in the ratholing timer has had significant impact on the games, and many of the "pro ratholers" have been forced to adapt imo, which is a huge plus.

If stars wanted to have a middling game (i.e. ~50bb), they should have made 3 different table types rather than 2. IMO the ideal configuration would have looked something like 20-30 bbs, 30-50bbs, 50-100bbs. With this structure, no one would be getting exploited simply because of what they bought in for, and people would have complete control over what game they wanted to play. Given the recent trend of the games, I think the 30-50 bb games would be extremely popular (which would have been awesome for the sites. 30-50 tables would still allow for the rake to get to the maximum a good % of the time, but the fish are busting much slower because they're not losing 100bb every time they get stacked).

Overall, I'd give the changes about a "B." Clearly stars needed to do something about the developing situation, and I appreciate that they responded to the market's wishes, but I think the solution they came to was still too ratholer friendly (and ultimately, neither fullstackers and ratholers feel really happy with the new system).


Important changes that still need to be made at stars:

-Fix waitlist problem (seems super easy to implement any changes here, see trout362 thread)
-Come up with something in software that doesn't allow people to steal the first blind and then leave. It's amazing how many times I've been stolen from in this way, and stars should do something to protect me imo.
-Provide better incentive for people to start new tables (by increasing the VPP's people earn at ring games when they're playing heads up). This really seems like a no-brainer given that table starting is a big problem, and giving out a few extra VPPs to solve it costs almost nothing in the short run and will be profitable for the site long term.
-Add a "reserve time bank" where you had a balance of time to add to the table of your choice. There will be a lot of times during my sessions, especially on the fast tables, where I don't realize that my timebank has run out and I end up folding big hands by mistake. When this happens, I usually end up having to leave the table so it doesn't happen again, which costs the site rake. Instead, I should be able to add like 10 more seconds from my time bank to this specific table (out of a balance of a few hundred seconds which could get refilled weekly/monthly etc, would be super easy to make sure people aren't abusing) and then I wouldn't have to leave.

The changes to the min/max buy-ins have been negative for just about everybody. It's obviously worse for full stackers since the half-stack tables are dominant, and it's actually worse for short stackers too because they would benefit from sitting with more 100bb players who are trying to see flops with implied odds.

Currently, the only party who is benefitting from the changes is Pokerstars, though I suspect this will change in the long run as people leave the site if the table limits aren't fixed. Since the fish at 50bb tables now need to make 2 or 3 mistakes before going bust, Pokerstars is collecting more rake than they would have if the fish went bust in a single hand.

The answer is to make all tables 35 or 40bb-100bb (and add deeper tables if people want them). If you want to keep shortstackers, then make the buyin at short tables fixed at 20bb, no more and no less, thereby eliminating anyone from manipulating stack sizes to their advantage. Then it will be mutually agreed upon by everyone at the short table that the game being played is no longer actually 'poker' and that 90% of decisions will be made preflop. It's not right that one shortstacker can be sitting at a table and make this decision on behalf of everybody else at a table who are trying to actually play poker with normal stacks that allow postflop play.

20bb stacks can still easily take advantage of 50bb stacks.

+1

Only thing i'd add is make bonus for first TWO people to sit.

I prefer the 20-50bb tables be gone since they already have enough of them on FTP. This goes for both hold'em and omaha

Somehow I don't think stars will find this argument persuasive.

I like the changes personally, I just wish each table type had its own color (atleast the BB amounts of the buyin) or was more clearly marked somehow so you wouldnt have to try to hard to find the right tables. I find the variety of tables refreshing.

+1
esp now that these *********** got their hands in our pockets...

I prefer Stars let me win more since I've been losing a lot on FTP.


Seriously though the 20-50bb tables don't work well w/ 40-100bb tables. As stated already you could have 3 table types: 20-30bb, 30-50bb, and 40-100bb although I think the 40-100bb games will still suffer. Otherwise you could make 30bb cap tables and 40-100bb tables. There would be something for everyone, shortstackers wouldnt have to rathole at the cap tables and 40-100bb tables would run more often.

I think that the changes made the games worse for the regulars. There are much more shallow than deep tables running and all the bad player sit at them, except now you can't rebuy to 100bb if the fish sucks out on you and there are more shortstacks than ever. And all the fishes play at the shallow tables, because "it's cheaper".

I personally won't be playing at Stars because of this change.
I don't know, why it was made, but it was to decrease the shortstacks %, it failed.

Shortstacking is not ethical and in live games a ratholer wouldn't be welcome back at the table. Why Stars can't simply warn and then ban players who abuse this strategy?
Just like you don't want players waiting at several Hu tables, even though it's not against the rules, do something about the hitnrunning shortstacks.

Eventually, your site will suffer because of this as well, because the regulars will move on to other sites and shortstackers will play against each other, lose to the rake and gradually quit as well, until there are no more games running.

just like to say that theres a big difference between playing 6-max with 5 short stackers (20bb) and playing on a table 20-50 bb with only 1-2 shortstackers..thats where the problem lyes.

if your playing with all shortstackers your short if not...

edit* just hoping stars realises thats where the problem lyes with professional ss's

im a 100bb+ reg. i like the changes. nice job guys. i wish you would ban all the short stackers or whatever people are saying, but thats a bias pov and an unrealistic fantasy right?

******ed, as i assume you knew, because 35-100 bbs is ideal. the randos that want to buy in for 40 bbs go to the short tables and don't realize what is going on and why everyone is just going all in preflop.

In my experience there is almost none 20-50bb running at 25-50 and 10-20 PLO. There is more ante going then 20-50 when I play, and a ton more 40-100 tables then booth of those.

No way 20-50BB games are 75% of total games..

agreed.

It's simple. 20-50bb means more rake and smaller winrates for Pros.

That is the result.

Full stack games run significantly less often.

You got around 3000 responses and not a single one said 20-50bb.

So, terrible job.

How to change? Make every table 35-100 and 50-100bb's and raise the rathole timer to 24 hours. Problem solved.

if they could make all tables 40bb i don't think many ss'ers would just quit poker altogether, they would most likely drop down and be forced to try and learn poker while still generating rake for Stars. Stars seems to be under the impression if they make the minimum buy-in 40bb or more that all the ss'ers are gonna leave the game or something and i doubt that really is the case.

Steve,

If 100% of your HS community that actively posts on 2p2 came in here and said, "we all think xxx is the best" would stars make those changes or would be like, "well we'll do part of that" while still making that games unbearable by allowing ratholers to play? seems like everytime you guys ask for advice/make changes, they aren't really what people want but yet, you keep coming back for opinions.