Yes, this is the issue, full ring is massively effected by these short stacking players and I play full ring and would love something done about it.

I don't think the short stack strategy works as well at 6-max due to the increased blind pressure. I could be wrong but I'm just inferring that from the fact that there aren't very many of those players at 6-max.

Fair enough. We can always allow an extra fudge factor that doesn't hurt recs but still limits pro shorstackers. For example, we can allow 24 ratholes per 96 hours, and an additional 100 ratholes per month. This will allow the businessman more than enough ratholes for anything he wants, but still allow pro shortstackers only an average of 9 ratholes per day. How does that sound?

Of course, rather than speaking in terms of "number of ratholes", we'll define it in terms of table identities. So each player will have 24 table identities, who expire after 96 hours, and an additional 100 table identities who expire only once every 30 days. When a player comes to buy in at a new table, a 96-hour identity will be used if possible, and if no 96-hour identity is available with the player's required buyin then one of the 30-day identities will be used.

This works according to the following very good methodology:
Also, a bit off-topic:

I have so much love for your post LazyAce, it was a thing of beauty and I agree with almost all of it.

However, I don't agree with the first paragraph, since the stack identity rules can be implemented and the recreational players that won't ever fall foul of it will never need to even know that this rule now exists; they won't realise or care to read up about it so it won't matter that they wouldn't have a clue what it means should they happen to stumble onto the Pokerstars rulebook page.

Any players that these rules do effect, will be able to understand it's complexities very easily since they will be regular poker playing ratholers that know the game and their strategy inside out.

@ lazy

Your suggestion looks fine by me too. The main point i was trying to make was that i don't think the identities thing is going to work. Therefore we need something simpler. Your sollution looks like an option. The easiest one (which i like most), is just upping the min buyin. We had a very long 2+2 post about raising the min buyin in PLO, and the vast majority of the people wanted 50bb min. Stars however increased the min buyin only to 40bb.
In plo i think there are actually a lot of 'NRS' players. The mathematical edge of a short stack is way larger in plo compared to nlh, so a lot of regs buy in short from time to time. I myself buy in short a fair amount of the time, but will always stay for as long as the mark is on the table. Another high profile example of this is jeans.

Thanks for the love but it's been months that Stars has been toying with this idea, we've had another meeting, there's an 18 page document ffs, Stars development can't figure out how to implement this for the life of them.

Why is that? It's because it's so damn complicated. So if all these professional and intelligent people at Stars are this stumped at how to make this thing work, then how is the regular person supposed to understand how it works? Please keep in mind that the explanation needs to be communicated in a lot of different languages to be fair. That 18 page document is going to become a 200 page doc in no time.

As far as I unerstand, all of people who want to remove MSS-regulars are just fishes or weak regs. Why do you do this in another way? Do you think that you would win without MSS-regulars. We have a strategy, and it isn't better or worse than BSS, just different. And why all of you discriminate it. You are trying take another's earnings. But you had better improve your game instead. Nothing changes without MSS-regulars for you.

I and most people would love to see the min buy-in raised but the reality is it is never going to happen. The truth is that recreationals do like to buy-in short and it is probably good for the games that they are able to continue doing so as being forced to start out their session deeper will just make them go broke even quicker than they are.

Limiting the number of short buy-ins allows them to continue doing what they are doing, prevents rampant systematic ratholing but at the same time the rules are simple and the same for everybody across the board whether you are recreational, full stacked reg, or a short stacking ratholer.

I don't have a problem with what you or any NRS players are doing with regards to buying in short at the beginning of your session and realizing a TEMPORARY mathematical edge that disappears once you accumulate a certain number of chips and you are unable to sustain that edge all day everyday the way things are now.

I was about to post something about like this as well.

After thinking about it more, the Ratholing proposal post by Steve is illogical. If his proposal were to be implemented, we would have the following conditions:

1. There is a 20bb game offered with the equivalent of unlimited ratholing.
2. There is a 100bb game offered where you can rathole to 100bb an unlimited amount of times.
3. There is nothing in between. You are allowed to rathole to 40bb, but only if you don't do it a lot.

So you have a 20bb and a 100bb game that you can play professionally, but nothing in the 40-60bb range. This doesn't make sense. Stars said that they are not willing to raise the buy-in at the 40-100bb tables because of the demand to buy in for 40bb. Yet if this proposal goes through, you *can* play a 40bb game, but only if you are a recreational player.

So if you don't want ratholing shortstackers, just raise the minimum BI to 80 or 100bb. And like joeri said, make another game that is 40bb cap (I think 50bb is better, but that is a moot point). The only reason there is going to be uproar in this thread with regards to this suggestion is because people who play 100bb's assume that most of the recreational players will now go to the 40bb cap tables. But if there is that much demand for them, then that is what Stars should offer.

Lastly, this system proposed by Steve rewards lower volume players by giving them more ratholing "privileges". It's pretty backwards to take away a player's privileges because they play a lot. And as I said before, it just encourages multiaccounting which will 100% be an issue.

Ratholing above the maximum buy-in for the table needs to be allowed as long as the 2 hour timer for returning to the same table still applies. If ratholing past 100bb were not permitted, most full stack regulars to my knowledge would welcome this for their own selfish reasons because they could stack a fish for 100bb > table breaks > jesus seat another fish who is 200bb deep and instantly cover them. It would take bumhunting to a whole new level. And would defeat the purpose of having a maximum buy-in.

If you are sitting with 100bb 2 seats to the left of a fish who has 200bb you should probably like to be able to top up to 200bb in order to cover the fish but you can't because the max buy-in rule does not allow it. But then I come along and insta sit the seat directly to the left of the fish with a 300bb stack because I ran good on another table. Is that fair to you? I would guess not. 3 hands later I stack the 200bb fish and leave that table with a 500bb stack, then proceed to jesus seat fish all day with my super deeps stacks because you dont want players to be able to rathole over 100bb.

That is completely illogical. Max buy-ins at 100bb are completely fine and ratholing should not apply to anything over the table maximum so long as you are not returning to the same table.

Segregating player pools further than they already are is just bad. Keep in mind that much of the profit from playing a mid stack comes from exploiting full stacks. Standard winrates at a 50bb cap table would theoretically be lower than 40bb ratholers because there is no math edge. So in a nutshell, your idea is to introduce another format that is barely beatable so that less money goes to winning players and more goes to rake?

Lower volume players are not getting rewarded by any proposed system. Low volume players are not causing problems and disrupting games. They dont systematically hit and run tables.

One thing that you guys don't understand is that the only players who will notice that the identities system is running are the ratholers! If you're not a ratholer, you will never see anything different when you're choosing your buy-in. A reasonable expiration time will be set to make sure of that. So there won't be any recs trying to find out how it works because they're never gonna need to choose a different buy-in.

It will work automatically. Even if you are ocasionally affected by it, you don't have to understand exactly how it works... Your minimum buy-in at the table will be like 52bb instead of 40bb and a small warning will be shown just like when you return to the same table a short time after leaving with a big stack.

I don't like Lazy's suggestion because it's too arbitrary. Arbitrary can't/shouldn't be an option. Why can't people buy-in short for how many times they want? If they're not ratholing, there's nothing wrong with that. I don't think it matters much if there's lots of NRS. You shouldn't make impossible something that is not-wrong (NRS) to solve the issue, IF you have other options. And we do, identities works right on the problem.

I dont understand one thing - whe leaving from the table when doubled is a crime or "ratholing". Every player have the same rights - so why PS spend their time and discuss such ephemeral question? Why player who play 100bb is better than players w 40bb? The only goal of this discussion is to discriminate reg players. But some Big stack players prefer to whine instead of improving their game skill. Its a pity, that PS is listen to that people...

This anti rathole thing is so idiotic and wrong, Stars are going on about a bunch of stupid hysteric FR nits that cant learn how to play short. I wish u all fish goes hypers\plo\cap and you go full rb mode, wo any pre rb winrates, if you still have some bb\100 which I doubt.

I probably should have made it clear in my post that I am actually all for the whole stack identity solution if they can make it work and get it done in a reasonable time frame but imo that time frame has already passed us by.

If you read my entire post - i know it is a bit tldr sorry - you would see that I am disputing the idea that a true NRS player actually exists or at least if they do there are so very few of them. Keep in mind I defined a NRS player as one who would be caught in between recreationals that do rathole but not enough to be effected by an optimal value for X amount of buy-ins for Y time frame, and pro shortstackers that systematically rathole. I gave my reasoning of why they dont truly exist because it's near impossible to play any kind of decent volume as a shortstacker without ratholing to some extent. So the idea is indeed rejected by Stars, and yourself to preserve the current playing experience of a fictitious segment of the player pool.

You're missing that short stackers have an advantage over the big stacks though. This is because if there is a hand where one 40bb player is up against two 100bb players, the 40bb player is only 40bb's deep with the other two players, but the other players are 40bb deep against one opponent and 100bb deep against another opponent. This can effect how the hand plays out, normally to the disadvantage of the bigger stacks.

If I have top pair top kicker on the flop, a 40bb stacker overbet jams into me and I feel he could have a big hand, a draw or top pair with a worse kicker, with a big hand being less likely as why would he overbet, then I would happily call if the pot was heads-up, but if it is three-way with a bigger stack left to act behind me, I don't want to call and then the big stack jams over me and I have lost more money than I wanted to in that hand.

Similarly the big stack that's last to act, might have bottom two pair that he would happily call off against the short stacker, but he might be wary that the other full stack in front of him is just trapping with a set, and if the full stacker calls, he could be facing a big 60bb all-in on the turn with the other full stack and he loses more than he needed to.

This are details. MSS has own advantages and disadvantages. We can make money in one pots, but can't in another. It's normally. Or you want to make poker where play clones?

ok.
Please state just 1 disadvantage of a 40bb player in any spot, preflop or postflop.
(not being able to stack a 100bb fish doesn't count)

You typed out a very long hypothetical story but that doesn't make the bolded true. For reference, take a look at the Zoom games. It's only a few regulars that don't quit and come back with 100bb once they get deep.

With regards to player segregation, yes I agree that having a bunch of different games isn't great because it makes the lobby confusing and annoying. But at the same time, there is obvious demand to be able to play with ~40 - 50bb. Not giving the option for people to play with a stack they want to play with doesn't make any sense and isn't very fair. Having an extra game type take up space in the lobby isn't a huge deal - nobody is complaining about the presence of 100-250bb tables even though they are seldom used. Obviously what a lot of people are concerned about is that the bulk of the volume that is currently at 100bb games would go to these 40bb cap tables. However if this were to happen, it's only proof that there is a demand for this type of game and hence it should be an option.

Pretty much this. Stars, come to your senses! just think about it.
And 18 pages for that solution?! talking about the simplicity of the solution lol.

Am sorry to some of the MSS players posting in this thread but persistent ratholing is at best super lame and at worst scummy, and certainly decreases a lot of the enjoyment that recreational and reg players have at the tables.

Stars is lining itself up in a very positive light if it can implement the changes well. Everyone will still be able to buy in short, but the advantages to doing this and ratholing will be reduced. The main reason recs play poker is to have some fun (while also having the chance to make money), this certainly should improve their playing experience, not sure how anyone could really argue with that in principle, and hence should make the games more attractive to rec players.

They are not depriving players of an option to play with that stack size, you can still buy in for 40bbs.

At the same time, there should also be similar rules applied to some deeper stacked situations (maybe like zoom or the 100-250bb deep tables).

Good point i play cap i really like to see 40bb CAP tables, or 40-80bb tables

I really like the anti-ratholing solution, cannot wait for it to be implemented. What timeline do you currently envisage?

Yes they are. Maybe not when it comes to recreational players, but when it comes to grinders they are taking the option away. Say I want to play with 40bb and I normally play 8 hours a day. Reducing the time I am allowed to play with 40bb to 30 minutes seems like depriving to me.

Ive been thinking about how much 'pro' ratholing this is going to stop...

Assuming 24 stack identities, the shortstacker will have 24 opportunities to remove a doubled up stack (FWIW, I believe most leave if they get to 60bb or so anyway) per 18-20 hours. Someone mentioned that doubling up once every 50 hands as an estimate which would equate to 1200 hands. I think that estimate is a little off and youre looking at more like 2000 hands per time period. Even so, playing 2k hands per day for 250 days of the year as a SSer would still let them attain SN at 100NL. At midstakes 2k hands/day is enough for significant rewards and at high stakes getting 2k hands/day in seems like good volume anyway. Plus youd get additional volume in if you added zoom.

Granted there are SSers right now that are acheiving several times that at similar stakes, so their RB/Income will be cut, but Im not sure this system will stop 40bbers at all. I think what youll find is that most of the hardcore volume 40BBers will spread their play to other sites whilst still making sure they play their 2k hands/day at Stars. And because of that the total amount of seats taken by 40bbers would reduce, but I dont think it would be anything approaching a significant reduction.

What about all the regs that want to play specifically with 30bbs? or those that under the new system would want to play 8 hours a with exactly 60bbs?, 55bbs?, or 74bbs?. Should they all have their own game variants too?

Stars wants you all to be able to play with those stack sizes (bar 30bbs) they just don't want systematic ratholing affecting the enjoyment of the recreational players. They also don't want to split the player pool any more than it already is. As such this solution seems to achieve that. Btw, I'm not trying to argue the fairness of it here, just rationalising the likely thought process.

As perfection says i don't think it's going to affect all 40bbers bar the most prolific ones. You're a high stakes player DoubleD, do you know on average how often you double up and leave a table in a 24 hour period or something? would be interesting to know if you were willing to share (np if you don't want to though). Since I would have assumed that the changes would affect small stakes players far more than the high stakes guys.

Yes, that is whole reason to do it, ie to get rid of ratholers like you. Wp Stars.