I emailed them some weeks ago and they told me they only reduce max amount of tables - so 24 is the max for cashgames.

You'd better tell this guy then:

btw If there are players who do not want that to someone they have won a stack and leave, let him create the kind of tables at which to sit down again with a short stack can be every 2-3 weeks or month

no need to change the tables are already there and zoom

Just leave Zoom as it is

to read this thread, you'd think that ring games was the only thing discussed at the meetings, instead of 1/3 of the agenda.

The recaps of day 2 and day 3 are yet to be released.

Don't some shortstack ratholers have 44 or more identities = # of tables limit?

Will such shortstack ratholers be able, as a result, to rathole 44 times in a given time period?

Will the Stars proposal limit ratholing to 24 instances or does it depend on how many tables you have as your limit?

Angle shooting for 40bb ratholers?
Is it just a case of upping their table cap to as much as they can, so that they can still very healthily sustain themselves on their diet of borscht, bread and vodka?

The latter.

great solution stars

In which case, Mother Russia lives on...

... and the problem of ratholing may, paradoxically, worsen.

Solutions:
1) limit ratholing to 24 instances per time period, irrespective of a specific player's table cap
2) eliminate the mathematical advantage of shortstack ratholing by lifting buy-in to 60bb

Steve

Why have moved away from the idea that player can open 4 tables with 40bb per hour?

they must have changed it very recently because I've heard dozens of cases of ring game grinders getting their table caps increased beyond 30 tables.

Sorry for my english.

1. Main.

What recreational players easier, more comfortable, better, cheaper?

Lose a stack of MSS / not lose in difficult situations because 10-20bb it is not pressing the possibility of losing the whole stack.


When playing with BB lost 100bb, fish will experience a strongly negative emotions, the probability of care is high.


This one item is not enough for further discussion and the abandonment of the rules as they are.

And in fact, the MSS should raise the issue that because BSS fishes undress very quickly. This damages the environment!!



2.
nl200 400. Example from 9-10 am to 14 MSK time, how many people at the tables % MSS? Well, an average of 40%, how many tables? from 10 to 18 at the limit 2.
When caring MSS, tables 5-6 will be how much?

For a specific example, the conclusion is obvious = fullring die in the early hours. In other will mean lousy. Evening usual regular game.


3. How many MSS players 200-400 and above, up to double in 100bb + go away? Where do we go?. So care doubling the causes changes in the rules can not be attributed.


4. Infringement of the rights of those who likes to play with an average stack.
What our rights are distinct from those of the other players?

5. What is the BSS does not like to play with increased MSS player. For many BSS players go easy money from the increased MSS

6. When BSS player doubles and walks away from the table? What's going on, it violates the ecology and annoying Fish.


And a lot of a lot of reasons for the abandonment of the rules as they are.

I like the ratholing solution as it is.

I can't speak about PLO, but this seems very short-sighted. 40bb players will swarm into the 6 max nlhe games making them unplayable if you were to do this.

What is the problem with ratholing ? My guess (and hope) is that the problem is that recreational players don't like to play in games infested with short stacks. Allowing tons of identities for super multi table grinders won't help with that. A few 40+ tables still have huge influence on the games.

Infringement of your rights? Lol, you can still buy in short you clown, you just can't get insane volume buying in short and ruining the games 24/7 for other players that have rights to enjoy the games just as much as you.

After these rules are implemented, it will mean that we cope with your antics for part of the day, and then when you've used up all of your identities, you and your pals have to get lost while we can enjoy playing proper poker with multi-street decisions against the whole table.

Jeah agree. And the fact that a lot of very TAG shorties around means that the total table has to nit up dramatically, making it a boring game for the recreational.

This whole mess is getting out of your hands every change is even worse than before! Why do you treat "short stacks" (funny term to call them short stacks nowadays when the buyin was lifted to 40 or 50 bbs just a few months ago) different than the big stacks? So it is okay to double up your 100bb stack and insta leave the table but not for a 40/50bb player? If you dont want to deal with this problems just raise the buyin for every game to 100bb shut down cap tables and see how good the environment will be...I bet it will be even worse than before and people will complain that there are people who dont auto rebuy and get below the 100bb mark...how dare they are!



a question at least: Is this identity stuff limit or sitewide? can I play e.g. NL100 and afterwards NL200? Oe so I need to play NL200 with the same BB amount as NL100? Fish will like this very much (yes there are rec. players who will easily hit your cap)

And if fun player doesnt like to play with mss players he can play deep tables as well,but there is very low amount of players, who do it,sooooo.

cant wait to see the new sng promo. can we get a preview on that? or just a couple of hints what will it be about?

If bss player doubled up and got stack ~200bb , will he continue playing table, where weak player have 30bb stack, and all regulars have 100bb?

You really should read the other posts in a thread before you post in it. At least read the last couple of full pages, and if you'd done that in this case, you would see that your silly comment has already been addressed.

Also, regular tables should get the min buy-in increased to 50bb, same as Zoom. Why no consistency there? That, coupled with the current implementation would make for more fair games, better poker with no downsides for Stars. And recreational players won't get affected negatively by these measures, all good.

I like the solution and I think the concept is good but at the same time I feel that the cap is too high and therefor the change would be insignificant.

I hope Stars keep an open mind in making future adjustments such as lowering the cap to something more reasonable like ~10-12 if after a while the original proposal (table cap) is not getting the job done