Yeah, I did an informal PM poll with all the shorts I know and they all said the same thing. (no change in winrate). As to the number of tables available, they ALL said they start more table now than they used to.....

We appreciate your suggestions on how we can improve your online poker experience, and we'll consider implementing further restrictions on short stacked players in ring games on Full Tilt Poker. We encourage you to always let us know ways we can improve your online poker experience, as many of our features were created based on feedback from our players.

If you'd like to recommend additional features or improvements, please feel free to visit our Online Poker Forum at http://pokerforums.fulltiltpoker.com and post your comments under "Feedback and Feature Requests".

Good luck at the tables, and if you have any further questions, please let us know.

Regards,

Isabel
Full Tilt Poker Support
Original Message Follows: ------------------------


As you are aware the full ring NLHE games on your site are full of shortstackers. These are players who sit on many tables at once and grind out a mathamatical advantage by usuing their 20bb stack to make decisions difficult for other deep stacked players who cannot play other deep stacks optimally when there is a short in the hand or even left to act.

There are many instances where I am not playing on the site because of this issue. If it was an occasionall inconvenice that would be tolerable, but as you know many if not most of the full ring tables have two to three or more "professional shorstackers" on them. I am aware of the fact that there are deep tables, the problem with that is that I often find competant regs on those tables, there are few bad or recreational type players on these tables.

I realize that short stackes are playing within the rules, and Im unsure what the solution is, but I urge Full Tilt to take some action to make the full ring games more playable. I know many who have already voted with their feet, as they say, and simply left the site for other sites. Another issue is that these players leave the table immediately after doubling up, making for constant changes to the table composition and a generally less enjoyable experience.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. """"""



so heres some correspondence, if you agree and care to help change the situtation, write away cats. maybe something will change if they get enough feedback. Its going to have to be a concerted effort by regulars though, because as you know shorts pay and generate alot of rake given the way they play.

I am not a SS'ng P.O.S., but until the rules change, I accept them as part of the game and I work my strategy around it. I closely monitor my PT3 stats vs. SS's to see how or if they are hurting me. Many people ITT have argued that they can't effectively be beaten while others argue that they can. Let me offer a few suggestions:

1. Table selection
2. Seat selection (position)
3. Not all short stackers are 7/7
4. Note taking - define ranges and situations where the SS'r pushes
5. Are they susceptible to being trapped?

I am not stating that I am a short stack killer. That said, it is ridiculous to suggest that there are not strategies to exploit them. I agree that sites need to raise the min. BI, but until they do we have to deal with it. As far as ratholer's. they exist in B&M poker rooms and they will exist online. You can't prohibit someone from leaving when they want to.

+1 esp. the "drivel" part


This thread title should be:

FT Refuses to Funnel All Fish Money Straight Into Deep-Stackers (bow down to us) Accounts, Waaaaaaa

Would standardized buy-in tables ever work?
Interests me.
A range like 25, 50, 100 and 200bbs.
All buy-ins and rebuys at each table must be for that amount.
Top-ups allowed of course.

hmmm

HEY!
Top-ups required!
Now that would be interesting.

There is a reason shortstacking works (edit and or is growing in popularity thank you Fermioun annoying dufus), you ignorant sluts. Every thread on the interwebs where people complain about shorstacking is full of posts that essentially say "learn to adjust" Its facile, intellectually lazy and annoying. That works to shorstackers advantage. Whatever, Ill continue to write emails to support and generally stick to the deep tables. Its just that the level of stupidity is at least as annoying as the shortstackers themselves, more so actually, cause professional shorstackes are using thier intelligence to beat a game, I don like it but I respect it, you simpletons who say just adjust and that others are babys are ignorant sheep and deserve to get your money taken. Enjoy your game paying rake to sit in games where you are at an inherant mathamatical disadvantage. Just because you can post doesnt mean you should when you dont know what the f you are talking about. So let me just say, eat a bag of s hit, you ignoramuses.

fyp

Astounding influential logic

lunch time...

I don't think you understand what is going on with how some of the thinking deep-stack players are overcompensating at one end of the problem (not entering pots for fear of getting shoved on) while not compensating enough on the other end (open folding on the button or SB to really tight SS's who are begging to give their money away).

He "probably" did? How much did I open for? How big were the stacks (did he have 20BB's or 17 or 26 or what)? What was his folding equity against me when he shoved like that? What was my opening range and calling range? How much of a percentage of the pot was the rake? (it's different at NL200 than at NL400 for example).

Good grief. The solution to this is so easy that it is sad.

Most B&M cardrooms do not allow a player to rathole after a table change. The player must bring his entire stack up to the max buyin when changing tables. ALL online cardrooms should enforce the same rule: for one hour after leaving a table, the minimum buyin at a new table is the amount of the player's stack following the last hand at the previous table, up to the nax buyin.

This is an easy solution to implement programatically. Casual shortstacking fish usually don't multitable or don't think much about poker strategy, so they won't care. Regular players will be happier. Pro shortstackers will leave and ftp will take a rake hit in the short run, but a better playing environment will provide them with longer term benefits.

Problem solved.

I think something like this is worth considering. I think El Diablo said something like this maybe 2-3 years ago I believe.

You would still have some ways of going about it perhaps including just buying into 12 tables at 1/2 and then when you double up and leave you go buy-in at .5/1 or 2/4 or whatever and don't return to any of the 1/2 tables until the time-limit expires for the double-up thing. But it would certainly make it more cumbersome for the rat-holers who are evidently so afraid to play with 40BB's or higher that they feel obligated to hit-and-run.

Personally, I don't mind it so much if they hit-and-run if they are a good player. I would prefer they leave the table anyway thus potentially opening the seat for a fish.

If FTP sees 3-4 players per table short stacking they have to worry about those players leaving the site if short stacking was stopped. Now 2+2'ers would be happy if they left, FTP on the other hand wouldn't be. These are after all players who are paying rake.

To keep everyone happy I suggest FTP add some 50bb min tables so the players have a choice to buyin short or sit on the 50bb tables.

Excellent suggestion - this would work well. Today, I watched a short stack spread about the FTP NL50 tables like a virus. I was on 4 tables and he showed up on 3 of them at various points in my session. To make it worse, after he had doubled up on one table, he left and turned up again some 5 minutes later at the same table - I think he joined the waiting list as soon as he left! The above suggestion is a good (and fair) way to fix this problem.

On a side note, I seem to be reading more and more about FTP banning short stack players due to them exhibiting bot like traits in their plays. Maybe the short stacks will continue this methodology at their peril.

I personally have no problem with changing the ratholing times or min buyin for tables, but it seems like a "solution" for a nonexistent problem. If 30bb was the new standard, we'd soon hear complaints about the 30bb stacks exploiting everyone, or 40bb or whatever (I think Curtains said he'd just learn to play a 40bb stack in this case, which would probably hurt most regs way more than him playing 20 deep). Eventually we get to the point where fish are broke / don't feel comfortable playing and every table is reg-infested. I suppose at that point everyone would start begging for 20 or 30bb min buyin tables again.

In my opinon, most of this crying is the result of games getting tougher, especially with the arbitrage for huge winrates in NLHE closing up. No one (except MB) seems to address the fact that mass tabling rakeback pro regs are the real problem. It already happened in LHE, and now most limit tables are all pros fighting to get a seat in a game with one fish. I imagine that if 16-tabling regs weren't clogging up all the games and crowding waitlists that more fish would randomly sit down on open tables, but I cannot verify this.

The "make 50bb tables default" argument is incredibly self-serving and unsubstantiated. There is really no evidence that the fish would prefer 50bb tables to the 20bb tables if the 50bb were unmarked. Maybe in fairness the sites could mark both games as NLHE [20bb min] and NLHE [50bb min], but making deep games default is deceitful. Furthermore, I find the Ed Miller argument irrelevant, especially when you guys write stuff like "players who [... ] grind out a mathamatical advantage by usuing their 20bb stack to make decisions difficult for other deep stacked players who cannot play other deep stacks optimally." Sites don't care, period. Poker doesn't exist for deepstack regs to make profit--it HAPPENS to be a game that a skilled player can beat under certain conditions (rake structure, game rules, opponent skill).

So B&M casinos are deceitful?

1.) This discussion is about internet poker.
2.) I've played in four different B&M casinos. The min buyin for all NL games was between 20 to 25 big blinds.

+1

but i'm seeing more tables with over 3 of them every couple of days (seriously).

it's pretty clear the math favors the scum. if ftp doesn't do anything then the market will sort it out for them. if ssers keep opening new accounts (or if they're opening multiple accounts, or if they're bots - which for obvious reasons some of them have to be), the situation eventually will hit a tipping point, and then we'll see what happens.

back when people played live poker, anybody who ratholed wasn't invited to play again. and no cardroom manager worth anything is gonna let you bounce from table to table, buying in for the minimum each time. while electronic online poker makes it possible for you to "follow the rules" without any ramifications, hopefully one day that will change. in the meantime, you're still an angle shooter, pure and simple.

I've played in B&M casinos where the MAXIMUM buy-in was 20BB's. Seriously. Makes for a stupidly hilarious game.

In some places I think a 50BB max buy-in is not uncommon. This varies by casino and location of course. Different standards (and laws too) from AC to California to Florida.

Again, we are talking about internet poker.

LOL wat? Everyone who thinks this way should read David Sirlin's Playing to Win (free to read online).

And yet you defend shortstackers. The irony

Thinking that people are exaggerating the problem and don't take advantage of the free money that is being thrown at them is not exactly the same as 'defending' them.

I much prefer a mediocre shortstack player occupy a seat than a good deep-stack player or even a mediocre/super-tight deepstack player who isn't helping to generate action.

Good deep-stack players and even tight/mediocre deep-stack players annoy way more than the vast majority of shortstack players.