THIS.
40bb players at 6m are really awful, due to the increased blind pressure.

It seems that ratholing is being used as a euphemism for shortstacking here. The only reason that ratholing might be considered bad is because it doesn't give other players a chance to get their money back when someone leaves the table with it. But since poker is one long game, it doesn't really matter anyway.

If shortstacking is the problem, I think that PokerStars should deal directly with shortstacking rather than using this round-about rationale of preventing ratholing. Shortstackers leave a table when their stacks get big. That is what shortstacking is. That's not the same as ratholing. A table either allows shortstacking or it doesn't. It's an even playing field. Anyone can shortstack if they choose.

So either allow shortstacking or don't allow shortstacking. That's the real decision. To be or not to be, that is the question.

Anyone know if this will effect 100bb rathollling or just shorter stacks.

Panicddd

this

i often see when fun players swithes a lot of players with minimal stack having fun with regulars, who trying to catch them, pushing random hands and so on, if they would have to play with full stack even if they didnt want to, they will lose they money faster or will be dissapointed and stop playing

Its the other way around. Shortstacking is used as an euphemism for ratholing. I guess you could also say that ratholing is used as an euphemism for scumbagging, douchebagging or pieceofsh*tting.

Yas is it polite discussion? Most 200+ mss players usually doesnt leave afted doubling up.

The plo number is this low, because the rake is double relative to nlh. Shortstacking 1-2 systematically is basically playing with a negative expectation pre-rakeback. Players that can shortstack this limit plus ev are very good and table selecting hard, and for those players its better to full stack. Look again at 10-20 plus. I would guess that about 60% of the players start short on a new table except when a recreational player sits deep.

it's simply a false statement

I really fail to see what is nontransparent here. Everyone has the same number. If you're worried about *manipulation (?!)* on stars side I'd rather be worried someone can see my cards in the 1st place. It's nonsens obv

Regarding so called hypocricy which some furious mss wing is trying to put in so-called FR nits mouths: I'm also against 100bb ratholing. However, It's (at least at 400+) simply non-existant. Zoom is a different story thou and I believe for the sake of the games it should be prevented there.

Also, I find funny how MSS splash around that 100bb players were "too lazy" to learn 40bb game (which is not true anyway), yet each one of them is absolutely terrified of learning the 100bb game, which *accidentaly* happens to be more complex.

As a bonus: http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/team_p...st-131907.html

mbfun playing /w charts open!

Yes and if not I think most regs would welcome 9m players trying to shortstack 6m with open arms.

Completly agree.

Then they have nothing to worry about under the new rules. (assuming readytogo is not a shill account)

Well yeah it is still 24 hit and runs, but its not like they can output those 24 HnRs at the rate they do now. Regardless of how many tables they initially start with, in order to get the maximum number of HnRs they'd have to play down to 4, 3, 2, 1 tables respectively. At that point, their hourly is just so ridiculously low (even for mother russia) that its just not worth it.

Id like Stars to state clearly what it is they are against and want to prohibit as well, as it does still seem murky. But, Im not sure why Stars would go to all this trouble to implement a solution that they intend to circumvent themselves. I think thats just paranoia.

What's it matter that they are referred to? Most people refer to 50/100 cap as 10kNL cap, when that doesn't even make sense. You obviously don't have an actual answer.

It's pretty ironic that when I bring up legitimate points that are not in favour of 100bb, the supposedly superior and intelligent 100bb players resort to clown responses and posting silly pictures.

this is so funny, people complaining about guys with 40 bbs and pokerstars like a blind guy just obeying orders from those guys. Those guys dont realize that the 40-50-60 bbs players are going to study and soon they will kick your ass when they learnt 100 bbs play and get the the tables more harder, therefore less rake and less money for stars.....GG!

I really like the ratholing solution, shortstackers should be aware that ratholing is the problem.

Great job Stars to take good care of this!

if you dont get why transparency is important thats fine but lets just run through the facts and start by deciding if this doesnt strike us as strange. then maybe lets figure out the importance

- there have been thousands of posts from regs complaining about short stacks over the years on pokerstars. there have been a number of meetings with pokerstars. there have been a number of walls of text on the issue from pokerstars. NOT ONCE have i seen anything that clarifies pokerstars position on the act of ratholing. they have not once stepped up and said this is why we dont like it, or this is why its a problem, or this is our clear and detailed position on the issue. not once. weird

-pokerstars wont take a position other than we are determined to deal with the situation. pretty vague right? by accident? lets be real. they want to solve problems they havent even defined and they want our input on solving problems they refuse to define. how transparent is that?

-of all the simple and effective solutions to the issue (our issue, we dont know what pokerstars position really is) pokerstars has decided to pursue a "solution" that has no transparency. all of the boundries, checks, balances, rules, etc are all invisible. the company that refuses to even take a clear position on the issue now has an invisible solution. coincidence obv. the "solution" also involves pokerstars to have total control over manipulating the situation. another coincidence. dont state their position on the issue and then put measures in place that allow you to basically manipulate it however you want.

if pokerstars has a problem with ratholing then why dont they state why? what about it is a problem? be specific. i mean its only been a few years of dialogue and they have proposed a "solution". isnt it about time they stated their position. if anything doesnt it just seem weird not to?

pokerstars has the ability to and actively does adjust player max # of tables. this coincidentally alters a players # of identities. i know its just a coincidence but pokerstars "solution" allows them to basically let ratholers rathole people all day without changing the rules if they choose. this is great if youre pokerstars because allowing ratholing this way in the future is no problem because they havent even stated their position on the act of ratholing therefore, its totally fine. forget about integrity

right now theres players who will have 44 idnetities. thats still a lot of ratholing. are they going to discriminate # of tables based on stack size? does that seem fair? how will we know who has 50 identities and who has 24?

this "solution" in theory would be a big improvement but its still a bunch more bs from pokerstars imo

You can't expect to ask stupid questions and not receive stupid answers.

-----
100BB is a stack size, that lies within a range of stack sizes, that allows for a sufficient of amount of play on each of the four streets, thereby developing the game and rewarding the more skillful players.

To the extent that the range from, say, 80BB to 120BB doesn't alter the dynamics of the game significantly, then any stack size within that range could arbitrarily be chosen as the game's default if it wasn't for the fact that we evolved 10 fingers which in turn led us to develop a base 10 system.

Taking into account current trends in the game (especially opening raise sizing and 3-bet frequencies) one could no doubt form an argument that some other amount other than 100BB (but still close to it) would be a better size to use- all else being equal. That is, a mathematical model could theoretically show that 109BBs is a more "natural" size to use in terms of game play, but all else is not equal, most notably the currency system that we use. (E.g. A max buy-in of $109 would just be silly.)

It is also obvious that a buy-in amount below the range mentioned above restricts the game and that the lower that amount, the greater the restrictions.

Do people this stupid really exist?

New anti ratholing solution gets a firm thumbs up from me.

We are intelligent, we just believe that 100bb's is the standard stack size. Sorry if you don't agree.

+100bb's

im worry, cause id have to play less tables, and it would be harder to play with the fun players, cause they will lose faster and noone will free his sit

Following Meleab's than 100bb is more natural than 40bb, why dont we make infinity max buy in like in true no limit movie poker?

+1 for the ratholing solution, gj!

That isn't what I said.