Please show me a single player who is able to open more than 24 cashgame tables.

roll everyone back to 24 tables max? They'll never do it but i bloody wish they would.





http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/96...l#post37882781

I play a lot of PLO25 at the moment, and the rake is 20bb/100. At NL25 it's about 10bb/100 (source: PTR) so there is definitely a problem.

The simpliest method would be to reduce the rake cap, but that would mean less $$$ for PS. I think PS has signifant advantages compared to most other sites, as lower rake (4,5%) and less rake on split pots. If PS makes it even more competitive, that would put a lot of pressure to other sites for reforming their PLO raking.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=2961

be careful guys. playing >24 tables runs a high risk of developing dusty-schmidt syndrom.

umh yea, shouldn't have blindly trusted stars support

No, you would create a new 25th indentity (or take 25th counting from the biggest stack if it's already created).
The problem with current proposal is that people with 40 table limit could rathole at will on say 8 tables while my proposal prevent it while still allowing them to buy in with minimum on as many tables as they want if they play them simultanously.

no point in increasing the 24 identity imo
no matter if they can 40table or not

Apparently shortstacking is a much bigger problem than the atrocious PLO rake.

This is probably going to present technical difficulties, since a 40-tabler needs to have a different stack identity for each table, which he can't do if he has only 24 stack identities.

Probably the right way to fix your idea would be to make the expiration time of the stack identities 40/24 times as large. So if the standard expiration is 18 hours, the expiration of a 40-tabler would be 40*18/24=30 hours. And for a person who has an x table cap, the expiration will be x*18/24=3x/4 hours.

But I don't know if stars would like this, because they want to allow any player to open as many tables as his table limit each day, as long as he's not ratholing. If I understand correctly, according to stars philosophy (which I tend to disagree with but not sure yet), a person with a 40 table limit should be allowed to fire up 40 tables, buy in for 40BB in all, and sitout of each of them when he doubles up; as long as he doesn't leave these tables and joins another table instead, then that is acceptable.

AFAIK, you and I are the only ones asking this question. In case you missed it, I made a very tldr post on the subject here:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=149

The cliffs are, that the reason we can't just limit the amount of of short buy-ins in a certain time period is because it would punish mass tabling 40bb players who do not rathole. Other than that, this method would not effect recreational players and would stop ratholing dead in its tracks.

I would like to see Steve or Stars address the idea that these players can actually exist because:

-buying in short on lots of tables and
-never ratholing

implies that these players never table select at all, like leave when the only fish busts, or leave because the table has gone from 9 to 4 handed etc mid session. In order for them to truly not be ratholers once they closed down a table with > 40bb, they cannot open another.

And even with the stack identity method, these players will still be affected if they normally played multiple sessions in a day.

So now as I understand it, the whole purpose of the 18page stack identity method is to preserve the current playing experience of "Mass Tabling 40BB non ratholing players who do not play more than 1 session per day".

That seems like a whole lot of time and effort for such a small and more likely fictitious segment of the player pool.

I do believe there are players that buy in for 40bb and just run it up and quit all tables simultaneously when their session is done. And go back to 40bb when they start a new session after a break. I have been doing this with 60bb buy in for about a month and I sometimes play 3-4 sessions a day.

But people can and will adjust. Unless you are buying in for 40bb with the sole purpose of exploiting stack sizes and intend on Rat holing.

I still think Stars, in the interest of simplicity, should have just said SN and SNE's must buy in for 50bb min and the rest can buy in for 40bb. For a SSer the vast majority of profits come from RB and mass tabling. Therefore multi accounting wouldn't be much of an issue as they need SN status to profit. And for the lower VIP levels (casual players) I don't think people on 2+2 care how much they buy in for. We just want more of them.

Sect7G, I generally agree with your whole post. But let me ask you something. You say:
Why would you do something like this? I'm asking because maybe it will help me understand who these mysterious non-ratholing shorties are. I understand if you want to play 60bb deep, but why stay on a table after you run it up? Isn't it easier to just leave and sit down at another table with 60bb? Otherwise you find yourself sitting at some tables 60BB deep and at others 120BB deep; doesn't that make it too hard to play?

Also, how many tables were you playing when you were doing this? The part I find bizarre is that there could be 24-tablers who play this way.

A suggestion from pokerstrategy forum:

Invent optional CAP at usual 40-100bb tables in addition to identities. So if a player wants to have CAP, he chooses an amount of BBs for himself or none (in this case he plays with "identities" restrictions as PokerStars proposed). So the player that chose CAP for his stack always plays with the same amount of money and thus doesn't need to leave the table. If he doubles up, he stays with his initial buy-in (his "double up" in the brakets near) and gives opportunity to other players to win their money back but not scoop the doubled stack - only initial ammount. MSS player won 40bb and others have opportunity to get exactly the same amount back. This is fair. Plus this approach also solves the problem of ratholing among 100bb players that can also leave the table after winning some amount of chips. The current "identities" solution doesn't influence 100bb players anyhow, it only concerns midstackers, which is unfair.

This has the disadvantage - if previously a midstacker left after double up, now there will be no moving and queues will be huge. So queues should be restricted to 6-10 players, not more. Then this will make players to use table starters more.

I 20 table and don't pay any attention to HUD stats like continuation betting/ fold to Cbet and random info like that. The only notes I like to take are if the player is a complete idiot/random guy or how low of a range is a regular willing to go all in with (assuming he has me covered). I don't use any TN seating scripts or stuff like that.

I really don't pay much attention to my own stack size as my hand selections don't change much based on my stack size. If I run 1 table up to 150bb it's because I'm doing well so I don't see much reason to leave.

I suppose by a 2+2 standard I'm a fool but I think of myself as a good player but with a recreational players mentality. You can be both, and I think Stars has allowed things to shift way too far and this 3rd party software only raises the edges of the regs (bad for Stars) while further hurting the recs. (bad for Stars) I'm proof that you can 20-24 table while not paying any attention to these details and still make money.

Yeah, sure Probably in the wet dreams of Russian-MSS-players this will become reality....and i would leave the site. But.....nice try, my nervous friend from Russia

asking stars to build in a rathole-mechanism
lol

This reinforces the point Im trying to make. By playing multiple sessions per day, you are infact ratholing just with breaks in between and under the new system you will no longer be able to do this and be forced to buy in for 100bb at some of your tables during your second and third session and quite possible that you will be forced to buy in for 100bb on all tables by your fourth session of the day.

Soooo, Stars is going thru all this trouble to preserve playing experience of the short stackers who do mass table who do not rathole mid session and who only play a single session per day.

Maybe I'm wrong here and there is something that I'm missing in which case it would be great if somebody could point that out to me.

Sometimes I come back within the 2 hour time frame and join the same table and so I buy in with whatever I had prior. No biggie for me.

This argument by Stars that casual players buy in for 40bb or 52bb and enjoy playing with that and they don't want to affect those players doesn't quite jist with me. These players would buy in for 60bb or 95bb if they had to and likely wouldn't reduce play in the least. Perhaps they might drop down a stake and that's fair.

I think people need to remember that when the game was 20bb-100bb there was a less complaining on here then there currently is. Even though the most recent change to 40bb-100bb cut the problem by half (sort of). Just look at the SNE thread... there's like 100k views yet 4 or 5 years ago there would be close to a million views by now and 10 times the posts. People were having fun playing poker for a living. Now it's depressing. I've even had to quit my favourite game and give NL a shot due all the software that slows, and kills the LHE tables.

Why people are so distressed is how hard the games have gotten... due to training sites and added software. The boom is somewhat over, and frankly Stars's marketing (in most cases) has gone down the toilet. Sure they've spent a fair amount of $ but in a lot of wrong places.

@Sect
you are forgetting that 20-100bb didn't turn into 40-100, it turned into 20bb CAP.
it was 50-100 that turned into 40-100 so it didn't cut the problem by half, it added to it.
And back then shorties were rare and didn't use their stack advantage that well.

main difference is the sheer amount of shortstackers these days

It's not by any means clear that 100bb is the max people will be forced to buy in for. It may be that someone has to buy in for 500bb or more. This would happen more in Zoom.

I send Pokerstars an email asking if the rathoing change would effect 100bb ratholing, and they said they don't know yet.

^^

Can we please stop repeating old questions?

Well this is good to hear if true. Its the first time I've seen this that statement.

I sent an email to Pokerstars a couole of days ago saying.

">>About the anti ratholling rule which is meant to come into
>>effect soon. Does this apply to 100bb players? I normally play
>>with 100bb, and don't want to play withj 400 or 500bbs
"


And after being forwaded to two different sections got this response.

"Hello,

I think 'soon' is a relative term in this discussion. We have not yet decided on a solution, so the development is some time into the future.

It is also difficult to give you a detailed answer to your question since we haven't made a final decision on how this solution should work yet. However, I am pretty sure that it will not prevent you from leaving a few of the tables (and join new ones with 100 BB) when you have a big stack. It's only those who do this excessively that will be influenced by this functionality.

Best Regards
Baard
Poker Room Management"

Steve, an eta for the next part of the report?