PokerStars Announcement of Changes to NL/PL Cash Game Buy-ins - Page 21 - Internet Poker

MarcEnoch · 04-12-2010, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ktulu22

No way will there be tons of shallow tables. Short stacking is only profitable when played against full stacks. Full Tilt implemented almost the exact same system months ago and the short tables are basically non existent.

Die short stack scum

lol... there's always an edge vs the bad shortstackers, they don't shove enough, they check fold too much, they don't adjust the preflop ranges... seriously, I am winning more from the bad shortstackers than the regs.

The 20-50 bb will be a game where opening to 2bb will be standard from all positions from the regs, and the fish will come and open to 3-4bb and we will get most money from that.

LeapFrog · 04-12-2010, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarcEnoch

Hello, I made 50$ hour at NL100

.

Stackajawea · 04-12-2010, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyTurn2Raise

My problem is that this move is a bow to a mob mentality. Stars isn't listening to their players. True preferences are not revealed through panels, surveys, or internet forum discussions. True preferences are revealed through actual decisions on the site. It was clear that more deep players were in the 20-100 game over the 50-100 game. Yet, those players had their choices stripped away. Why? Because they are average joes that are not on 2p2 for hours per day or on the Team PokerStars Pro or whatever. The professional mob won out today. The average player lost choice.

We've seen the guy that buys in for 70BBs flock to the 20-100 game over the 50-100 game. Now, he can no longer reveal that preference. Furthermore, this is highly unlikely to be the vocal player who will complain about these changes on an internet forum, through a survey, or through an email back to PokerStars.

I will continue to push for changes that improve the game. It seems silly to just stop all arguing and not continue to re-evaluate. It was re-evaluation that led me to my current spot. I was all for raising the buyin way above 20BBs. Then, I saw how 50BB games went. I moved back to the 20BB min games, despite being a fullstacker and the presence of shortstackers, because 50BB min games sucked. My guess is 40BB min games will be slightly better, but still a far inferior spot to a 20-100 game (or 30-100 game).

lol @ thinking the 70bb guy gives a sh*t what the stack sizes are around him. They want to play poker while being completely indifferent of the buy-in structure (so long as it's not too much). The changes are to specifically curb shortstackers leeching from a system where they A) accumulate VPP's through larger stacks battling it out and B) could constantly shove light ranges against fullstacked players and make money simply because the fullstacked player has to correctly fold in spots where his original raise was still +EV.

The changes will be a ton better than what it is now even if it's not ideal for some vocal group of anal retentive regs or the single few people in the world who long for the system to stay the same.

Reckless_Abandon · 04-12-2010, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa45955

You want PokerStars to add a feature that specifically caters to your systematic abuse of the fine print?

They made a decision to not ban SSers. So being that it's not going away they might as well help SSers spend more time playing and less time clicking.

MyTurn2Raise · 04-12-2010, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stackajawea

lol @ thinking the 70bb guy gives a sh*t what the stack sizes are around him. They want to play poker while being completely indifferent of the buy-in structure (so long as it's not too much). The changes are to specifically curb shortstackers leeching from a system where they A) accumulate VPP's through larger stacks battling it out and B) could constantly shove light ranges against fullstacked players and make money simply because the fullstacked player has to correctly fold in spots where his original raise was still +EV.

The changes will be a ton better than what it is now even if it's not ideal for some vocal group of anal retentive regs or the single few people in the world who long for the system to stay the same.

again, 70BB guys are not retards.
Poker players would really benefit if they thought about that.

Charlie.Dont.Surf · 04-12-2010, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 13_Xerxes

So, tomorrow we will have the choice between :

- 20-50bb fast
- 20-50bb
- 40-100bb fast
- 40-100bb
- 100-250bb, ante, fast
- 100-250bb, ante
- 20-50bb fast, 6 max
- 20-50bb, 6 max
- 40-100bb fast, 6 max
- 40-100bb, 6 max
- 100-250bb, ante, fast, 6 max
- 100-250bb, ante, 6 max
- 35-100bb, fast
- 35-100bb, fast 6 max.

That will be great, we need to have a Harvard diploma to find the right table...

Imo, we need only 2 tables :
- 20-40bb, standard speed (between fast and slow), cap, 6 & 9 max.
- 40-200bb, standard speed, 6 & 9 max.

lol forgot about the fast tables...feel sorry for fish that don't know you can filter this ****

ktulu22 · 04-12-2010, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarcEnoch

lol... there's always an edge vs the bad shortstackers, they don't shove enough, they check fold too much, they don't adjust the preflop ranges... seriously, I am winning more from the bad shortstackers than the regs.

The 20-50 bb will be a game where opening to 2bb will be standard from all positions from the regs, and the fish will come and open to 3-4bb and we will get most money from that.

There aren't going to be many fish playing at these tables. It will be 8 pro shorstackers and 1 fish. Full stack regs are not going to play on the short tables. The games will die off. Take a look at Full Tilt's lobby to see what will happen.

MyTurn2Raise · 04-12-2010, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister Havisham

For 20-100: Take the number of casual players who buyin for 50BB or more at 20-100 tables and divide that by the number of seats which opened up at 20-100bb tables. Discount this to some extent because 20-100bb tables are the default table. If this number, before discounting, is bigger than the same ratio at 50-100bb, it puts a serious dent into MyTurn2Raise argument, especially the lower the percent of players who buyin for teh default.
Players who buyin for the default should not be totally discounted from the calculations. Discount them somewhat - the discount doesn't have to be the same at 20-100bb as 50-100bb

I like this. I doubt this level of analysis was done.
Furthermore, though, I think it would show a sizable proportion of players preferred the 20-100 game. It doesn't have to be a majority to show that game should exist.

I was all for all tables being labeled so that none is perceived as the default or normal.

8angryfish · 04-12-2010, 05:53 PM

Nice job PS, I like these changes given the circumstances.

People, it's very likely stars HAD to choose a middle option solely for their bottom line in the years to come as a gambling provider.

People like the gap in buy-ins, just as they like being short, two individual aspects and preferences.

This is why mt2r is upset, he happens to be in the group that likes the buy-in gap. On a personal note to him, you were basically shafted just as much as the shortstackers. They got their ratio halved and you did as well, there might be unknown mathematical implications that I'm not aware of but instinctively this feels fair?

My number one point:

PS is not out to please you. PS is not out to please anyone. They will do what they believe to be most profitable for poker in the LONG run.

Right now they have a huge player base of shortstackers, if they can preserve the game (needed for long term success), and leech the profits from SS'ing a bit longer, they are getting the best of both worlds. Going in one direction flat out would probably be hurting their total player base more than with this plan, and it doesn't really change anything long term (growth of poker wise).

Disclaimer: I am not at all entitled to make a post of this fashion. I really don't know much, so don't hate, just trying to look at this objectively. Barely any real debate is going on here, just statements never being met with arguments. C'mon people, we need to be working just as hard as ps to preserve the game, in whatever sense that means (profitability for pro's?). Personal preference should really be left out.

MarcEnoch · 04-12-2010, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeapFrog

.

If the 20bb game dies I already have my 40bb strategy ready.

I'd like to see how you adapt to that. IMO 5bb/100 easily achieved

Reckless_Abandon · 04-12-2010, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ktulu22

There aren't going to be many fish playing at these tables. It will be 8 pro shorstackers and 1 fish. Full stack regs are not going to play on the short tables. The games will die off. Take a look at Full Tilt's lobby to see what will happen.

The shallow tables at 1/2 NL have been gaining popularity since they were introduced and they are much softer than the old tables.

ktulu22 · 04-12-2010, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarcEnoch

If the 20bb game dies I already have my 40bb strategy ready.

I'd like to see how you adapt to that. IMO 5bb/100 easily achieved

bwahahahahahah

hahahahahaha

hilarious

MissionBetterLife · 04-12-2010, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarcEnoch

If the 20bb game dies I already have my 40bb strategy ready.

I'd like to see how you adapt to that. IMO 5bb/100 easily achieved

u coach?

LeapFrog · 04-12-2010, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarcEnoch

If the 20bb game dies I already have my 40bb strategy ready.

I'd like to see how you adapt to that. IMO 5bb/100 easily achieved

yeah I don't think I can handle your 40bb strat. If nothing else I hope these changes eventually see you working at McDonalds. Good day sir

Cherufe · 04-12-2010, 06:00 PM

Don't like this change.
20-35, 35-100 was to good not to be done imo...