ty.

heyoooooooooooo ship it.
ty stars still the best

Adding the 100-250BB games should be good for the games even if they're not popular.

Now the 40BB-100BB are the middle option instead of the situation currently where 50BB min was the higher, unusual option. In a vacuum, people are more likely to tend to select the option in the middle.

40-100BB minimum won't seem so high to people when they compare it to the new 100-250BB tables.

sounds decent. I'm not exactly over the moon with the outcome but if I was the shorties would be crying themselves to sleep...

i dunno about you guys but i got a 20 min errection after reading this news

nope...there are 20bb min tables. They are not popular.

1. Are all the deep stack tables going to have antes? What about medium or short stack tables with antes? What's the thought process on making antes only on deep stack tables?

2. For the medium stack tables, why just 40bb minimum, why not 50bb minimum like the current 50bb tables that people currently seem to be satisfied with?

3. How does the "default" buyin play a part at the tables? Is it just the buyin automatically placed in the box for "other amount"?

+1 to those saying that filling the nl lobby with a bunch of numbers about BBs is probably not a great idea, names should be:

shallow/short
normal/medium
deep

seriously stars, how ****ing stupid can you be... why do you think overlapping buyins is good?

20-35
35-100
100-250

if people want to play with x amount of bbs, they should play with people that also want to play with that amount. I have no idea why it took you brilliant minds 6 months to come up with such a terrible system, its beyond pathetic. If you understood poker at all you would realize that bb difference in stacks skews games much more when stacks are shallower (i.e. difference between 20-50 stacks is huge compared to 100-200)

I highly doubt this is going to be much better than 20-100 and 50-100 for the exact same reasons why that system failed. I don't get how anyone thinks that this is much of a positive change, but w/e applaud stars for being total morons.

Countown to each shortstacker starting 100 tables of 20-50bb and fullstackers countering so there being a million people trying to start as many of their kind of table as they want? How are they ordered in the lobby? If 20-50bb is on top that still make fish more likely to play those tables. FTP's way was soooooooo much better but obviously this is better than the current way.

As someone who has played a lot at the low stakes (NL25-NL100) tables over the past few years, I don't think any change was necessary at these levels because all the shortstackers were terrible. Even the ones that thought they knew what they were doing were pretty easily exploitable.

I can understand the need for change at mid stakes game, but maybe these games should have been left alone?

I kind of agree with the post above about 100BB games at least slowing down in the games I play. One of the things I would always look for at these tables is players with 30-60BB stacks. I guess I'm going to be playing a lot more short stacked than 100BB's now.

Preferred- 100-200 BB buy in

Grade: D
Not only did they keep the shortstackers in business w/ these retarded 20-50 tables they didnt really make the other tables significantly better.

One thing I hate for sure is that there will not be enough ante tables running and they LOWERED the min buy in at 100 BB max tables to 40BB now instead of dealing with ****head half stackers I have to deal with 40%ers. FFS stars, usually you do incredible work but this is a garbage effort to please the masses without addressing the real problem.

awesome changes .....I Love Stars

way to F up the labeling. Clog up the lobby even more.

You have no default table speed.
You have no default table buyin.

FTP did it right, why can't you.

A lot of fish have gravitated twords the 20 bb/40bb games on full tilt.
I could guarantee you half the fish will be at the 20/50bb tables if not more then 50%
.

Good job guys!