I don't think Stars is going to do something that discriminates against high-volume players and gives them a different set of rules.

The opposite is true imo.
I have to table select because my only advantage against a shorty is that i can stack a deepstack fish.
I used to play any table before but now if I only have regs at a table I am at a serious mathematical disadvantage.
And many 40bbers are bumhunters btw.



@DoubleD
About the demand for 20bb or 40bb poker, look at what happened to 20bb cap for FR->it died
The true demand is for a mathematical advantage by players with less skill(and some skilled players jumped on it ofc because an extra advantage doesn't hurt them either)

There is no proof nor even solid argument for that. In fact it's theoretically possible (although by my judgement unlikely) that larger stacks have an edge in multiplayer games. What is more likely is that this edge is somewhere around 0.0001BB/100 in favor of 40bb stacks (as opening ranges are more or less the same for short and deep pros and once it's 3bet it's usually heads-up).
You are spreading your intuition and frustration as mathematical facts. I just hope Stars weren't persuaded by whinning like this and go with what recreational players want (as it's the only solid argument in all this discussion).

Thanks for everyone who is taking the time to discuss potential ratholing solutions in detail.

I just wanted to let you know I'm closely following the conversation as we want to finalize our plan to address ratholing by the end of next week.

Lol wtf? Seriously? Maybe you should think about this/read into this before posting.

I shouldn't respond to vile ignorance like this but I am in good mood so here it goes:
There are situations in multiplayer game where say 2 players could "collude" vs 3rd one normally when stacks are symmetrical everyone (if acting in their best interest) is acting the same way so it doesn't occur. It's possible though that if 2 players are deeper what is optimal for them causes collusion effect on 3rd player. (say maybe you can open more from BTN if SB is deep causing BB to lose more than if SB is shallow). While it's unlikely it's possible and unless we see a proof your guess is as good as any.

The person I quoted was talking about Zoom. If stars is going to get rid of 50bb ratholing at Zoom they absolutely need to get rid of 100bb ratholing. No lazyace stated complete nonsense, how often is someone going to leave the table when there is a deep stacked fish and you are going to be able to get in the game off a waitlist? Pure nonsense.

This is not the case at NLHE. If you only want to play at my tables when you have a certain stack size - I welcome you. Natis whining about people who leave the table when they get to 52bb is so LOL. I would be fistpumping if someone wants to buy in with 40bbs and leave when they get to 52bbs sat at my table.


I love how all the guys whining about 40bbrs ignore the fact that they could just start deep ante games. Why do you hysteric FR clowns not do this?

Why don't you start deep ante games joeri?

Is it okay when someone gets 500bb deep and the person to the direct left is 500bb deep and they get up from the table and go to a different game? Is that considered ratholing scum? Should stars be preventing that?

No way you plo guys wouldn't start complaining about people buying in for 75bb at 75-200bb tables either. I can exploit a mathematical edge v 100bb stacks w/ a 75bb stack..... Is this ok?

starting normal tables is already hard enough with so few non bumhunters
starting deep ante tables is hopeless

I'm obv talking about PLO. Ss edge is pretty big and in a lot of situations. I can easily come up with 5 situations that happen very often. Same principles apply in nlh but way less frequent.

I bet if all the people regularly complaining about bumhunting and pretending to not belong to that category actually attempted to start tables, there wouldn't be this problem.

In reality what 100bb players want is fish having the ability to buy-in for any amount, but not having to compete with other (good) players who also want to play with a smaller buy-in.

@ JonIrenicus
If the true demand is for a mathematical advantage rather than to be able to play a medium stack, then why are there so many tables with mostly shortstackers?

With regards to FR cap dying, I have not been following the volume there but it would be hardly surprising if it died. At the low stakes it ran at it was a pretty big rake trap IMO. Regardless, why are so many 100bb players expressing so much concern over 40bb tables becoming a ghost town if they were introduced? If they didn't run, they wouldn't affect anything. Obviously everyone is concerned about the volume going there and those tables actually running a lot.

OK, as much as I love reading yet another thread that rehashes all the ratholing problems and shortstack/deepstack arguments (I don't, there's been at least 2 threads for that already), the title of this thread is player meeting reports, so can we please see them from the player reps instead of the same old bull**** being posted over and over again.

Panicddd

+1 / Very simple solution instead of 24 identies and bla bla bla.....

If Poker Stars want to solve ratholing problem so Panacidd solution is simple and great. And 100b and 40bb players and stars will be in ++++!!!!

I think the proposed solution will be a huge improvement

That said its still disappointing to see a such a weird solution that totally lacks transparency. It would be fair, effective, and simple to change the definition of the individual table under the existing rathole rules.

To me it seems like more than a coincidence that pokerstars has said they want curb ratholing but have refused to define what their problem is with it and why they are going to prevent it then pokerstars comes up with a solution that totally lacks transparency and allows them to manipulate the games as they see fit. Defining the situation would force you to act with integrity which may reduce your options. i get it

Please prove me wrong by articulating stars position on the act of ratholing and why it should be curbed

The thing is that ratholing and shortstacking go hand in hand if you put in decent volume.

I can understand that shortstacking NLHE 9m is too easy & lame and needs to be fixed (and tbh that's what people here want instead of a ratholing fix).

Looking at the lobby (again):

1/2 NLHE 9m: ~32% (40%+ yesterday)
1/2 NLHE 6m: ~16% (under 10% yesterday)
1/2 PLO 6m: ~20% (same yesterday)

...there is nowhere near such an infestation of shortstacks at NLHE 6m & PLO 6m.

At PLO you have a bit less variance with shortstacking but also a higher winrate by fullstacking.
The only edge of shortstacking PLO 6m is if you're playing equally skilled players without a fish at the table and even then you need to know what you're doing.
I can only laugh at people saying that shortstacking would be so easy in this game.
Why don't they go for it then? Pretty sure many have tried and failed miserably. Easier to flame people who make it work.
Again talking about PLO here.

I think the higher winrate outweighs a small mathematical advantage + lower variance in PLO, you just need to have the roll for it.
So fullstacking > shortstacking, but still nice to have an option IMO.

Conclusion: Fix NLHE 9m and don't touch NLHE 6m & PLO 6m.

No, 100bb ratholing isn't a problem since their starting stack is always deep enough at it's default size to appease other players.

The reason why people don't like shorties at the table is because they don't have enough money in front of them for implied odds and post-flop play. At least that's my major issue with them and I assume it's the same for others.

I have no problem at all with the concept of a player squirrelling excess money off the table that they have won, and putting it back into their account, regardless of their starting stack size.

That is why 100bb ratholing is fine in my eyes, these players are always deep enough from the outset to play a full hand of poker against them on all four streets, and I don't get bored playing them. Poker is boring when playing 40bb's deep and primarily playing a pre-flop game, so when half your opponents at a table have this stack size, it really sucks.

I have so much for your post. It's full-ring that is the main problem here.

Yes, Zoom should be treated differently than normal tables. But Lazyace is right, people leave tables with deepstacked fish all the time because they are playing too many tables or want to end their session.

Has someone from Poker Stars explained why they don't just tighten the buy-in requirements? Why are people allowed to buy in so short?

Please explain why you think it's OK for you to arbitrarily assign 100bb as the "default" size.

@Rant

Yes. I think it was Steve that posted a while back although it may have been someone else from Stars. They determined that a lot of people who do not rathole like to buy-in short, so they didn't want to take that option away from the players.

I apologise. I was wrong when I said I thought this wouldnt stop ratholing that much.

Id overlooked the fact that even though youre granting 24 stack identities to players, tables they have already bought in for count as well. So when a 24 tabler doubles up on one of his tables, he can leave that one but cant rejoin another (unless he wants to play with 80bb). Then he doubles up on another and has to leave giving himself 22 tables, and so on.

Hilarity ensues when they do this all the way down to being a 1 tabling 40BBer.

So yeah, great solution. Well done.

and then the 6m and plo 6m % would stay the same?

its still 24 hit n runs

dear yankov mcforeskin,

we have issued other players the right to 44 table and now we have granted you that same privilege. if you dont wish to play 44 tables please feel free to use the identities

this is what i mean by pokerstars not articulating their position on ratholing. then providing a non transparent solution. how will we know how many identities each player has? guess how has the ability to manipulate the games regardless of integrity?

Wow, you should make your questions harder next time, this one is easy.

$0.10/$0.25 blinds are referred to as $25NL, not $12.50NL or $10NL etc.

$0.50/$1.00 binds are referred to as $100NL.

They are called this because the XX before the 'NL' is assumed to be the default, standard stack size. 100bb's is in the middle ground of stack sizes, with 200bb's+ being 'deep', and stack sizes lower than 65bb's or so is considered 'short'.

Next! :-D

I'd like to think this is true, but most short stacking ratholers aren't playing 24 tables to be fair, it's probably more like 10 to 16 tables, so they do have a bit of leeway to win a reasonable amount of double-ups each day.

The jury's still out on this one for me.