Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > Internet Poker > Internet Poker

Notices

Internet Poker Discussions of Internet poker venues.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-19-2013, 08:28 PM   #91
PokerStars Poker Room
 
PokerStars Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 2,952
Re: PokerStars Player Meetings Report - April 2013

Player Communications 2
I realized this morning that I'd left one thing out of the section on player communications.

We did at one point have a special forum set up for communication with a panel of players who had signed NDAs. If players want us to reactivate this forum, we are happy to do so.

Our preference would be for the participants on the forum to be those who have been elected and attended player meetings in the past. We have been very pleased with the quality of discussion with player representatives thusfar and would be happy to continue it between meetings.

If there is a strong community desire for additional participants on the forum, we can discuss and consider this. One possible reason to want additional participants is to ensure maximum coverage of all of the different game types. My initial thought about this is that this may not be necessary, but if it is, the extra participants could perhaps be chosen by the other representatives.
PokerStars Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 09:18 PM   #92
old hand
 
CoreySteel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 1,314
Re: PokerStars Player Meetings Report - April 2013

LHE probably isn't represented yet, right?
I mean, Hood was at the first meeting, but he's not really involved in LHE anymore.
CoreySteel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 11:34 PM   #93
banned
 
Pokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 5,098
Re: PokerStars Player Meetings Report - April 2013

I've thought about this whole stack identity idea and I'm trying to define it better and this is my suggestion:

Every player on the site has 6 initial saved stack identities, A, B, C, D, E and F. Each stack identity saves at the point when the player leaves the table. These all last individually for 20 hours.

Now a 40bb player starts a session, he buys in at 4 tables with a 40bb stack size.

After 30 minutes, he has 87bb's, 45bb's, 50bb's and 42bb's. He quits all four tables.

He now has a saved stack identity portfolio of A:87, B:45, C:50, D:42, E:N/A, F:N/A for this player. The saved stack identity stops at 100bb's so if a player leaves with 140bb's, the identity gets saved as 100bb's in order to not force players to have to buy-in for higher than the table maximum where they may be uncomfortable playing super deep.

This same player then buys in at four new tables and the system forces the player to have the stack sizes which are the highest of all his saved stack identities, once all 6 slots have been saved.

The player clicks the min-buy in as he sits down at these four new tables.

Now buying in at 40bb's works for him at the first two new tables he sits down at, since he has identity E and identity F which are still spare and take precedent over the other saved identities. However the other two tables he sits down at automatically buy him in for 87bb's and 50bb's as these are his highest two saved identities.

He plays a bit longer and quits all four tables at 93bb's, 70bb's, 61bb's and 41bb's for identities E, F, A and C respectively.

The player's portfolio of identities now stands at A:61, B:45, C:41, D:42, E:93, F:70.

The player buys in at four new tables, and he is forced to buy-in at 93bb's, 70bb's, 61bb's and 45bb's as these are the highest four. If the player wants to open any additional tables, these are all set at his highest current identity, so if the player wanted to buy-in at eight tables all of a sudden, then his tables would be 93bb's, 70bb's, 61bb's, 45bb's, 42bb's, 41bb's, 93bb's and 93bb's in that order.

If he then plays at eight tables, and quits them all, then additional identities are saved as identity G and identity H, but when the player then buys back in at four new tables, then the highest four identities from A to H are used as his new buy-in levels.

After 20 hours of inactivity for an identity, that identity resets to N/A and now takes precedent as the players default stack size at a new table and the player is free to choose what he wants to buy-in at. These identities apply across all limits to stop a player getting 6 identities at $200NL and another 6 new identities at $100NL etc.

Having a limit of 6 initial identities means that the 40bb rakeback pros are forced to play deeper if they want to get in lots of volume, and it is high enough that the recreational players that only play a couple of tables at a time, won't notice anything and it won't effect how they want to play if they want to play short.
Pokie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 11:55 PM   #94
grinder
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 528
Re: PokerStars Player Meetings Report - April 2013

I'm really happy to see some positive attitudes from PLO players that I respect. Having Stars admit there was a problem and that action needed to be taken was the first step. This has been accomplished and they re willing to meet with PLO players. With just 1 6max and 1 HU PLO player at the past meetings I'm happy this was accomplished. I think something quite positive can come out of the planned PLO meeting. There will be plenty of time and some great minds to help tackle the situation and work with Stars to find a solution that is beneficial to both parties.

I think this PLO meeting will also be beneficial to the other game types that also have some rake issues.
Shane Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 12:41 AM   #95
veteran
 
d0nk3y's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tripmining with 42o
Posts: 3,186
Re: PokerStars Player Meetings Report - April 2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerStars Steve View Post
PLO Rake
While players use bb/100 to measure impact of rake on their winnings, bb/100 is not the correct way to compare rake between games. I've discussed this previously at length, so I will not belabor the point.

Our Supernovas do at least as well after rewards at PLO as they do at other games. Plenty of players are winning, and Supernova+ VIPs on average are doing just fine However, due to rake adding up to more bb/100, rewards are a bigger component of winning PLO players' earnings in bb/100. This means that players with low VIP statuses are having a harder time in PLO because VIP status has a bigger impact on results.
That's great but no one is a supernova at the stakes where the rake is the highest.

Not like I expected anything good to come out of that meeting anyway.
d0nk3y is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 12:42 AM   #96
What SN is this?
 
ESKiMO-SiCKNE5S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: ~DANZA KUDURO~
Posts: 25,792
Re: PokerStars Player Meetings Report - April 2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerStars Steve View Post
Player Communications 2
I realized this morning that I'd left one thing out of the section on player communications.

We did at one point have a special forum set up for communication with a panel of players who had signed NDAs. If players want us to reactivate this forum, we are happy to do so.
+1 want
ESKiMO-SiCKNE5S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 04:41 AM   #97
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Hood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 99 problems but a TT+ just ship pf
Posts: 6,362
Re: PokerStars Player Meetings Report - April 2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreySteel View Post
LHE probably isn't represented yet, right?
I mean, Hood was at the first meeting, but he's not really involved in LHE anymore.
Still play every day But yeah, a LHE player who's active on dot-com on this forum would be good.
Hood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 04:52 AM   #98
newbie
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 22
Re: PokerStars Player Meetings Report - April 2013

Solve this situation please, i am a plo player, played several years full stack 2009-2010 but now because of harder games and cruel rake policy i mix it with some short stack, especially higher limits. So i want to play 5 hours full stack 1/2 to 3/6, and then make a shot with 40bb to 25/50. I would be prohibited to open several tables 40bb because i played 100bb all day and have stack identity 100bb? I didnt make any rathols and wont be able to play a few high limits with short stack? It's unfair.
Even 50/100 a lot of games are shorstacked so what are you doing? You want to kill high stakes, nobody could watch 200/400 battles? You will kill a game if you kill highstakes. Think about amateurs who mix limits, Pokerstars what are you doing?
Kelpie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 06:03 AM   #99
PokerStars Poker Room
 
PokerStars Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 2,952
Re: PokerStars Player Meetings Report - April 2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelpie View Post
Solve this situation please, i am a plo player, played several years full stack 2009-2010 but now because of harder games and cruel rake policy i mix it with some short stack, especially higher limits. So i want to play 5 hours full stack 1/2 to 3/6, and then make a shot with 40bb to 25/50. I would be prohibited to open several tables 40bb because i played 100bb all day and have stack identity 100bb? I didnt make any rathols and wont be able to play a few high limits with short stack? It's unfair.
Even 50/100 a lot of games are shorstacked so what are you doing? You want to kill high stakes, nobody could watch 200/400 battles? You will kill a game if you kill highstakes. Think about amateurs who mix limits, Pokerstars what are you doing?
No, if you buy in for the table maximum, you aren't creating an identity.
PokerStars Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 06:18 AM   #100
grinder
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 678
Re: PokerStars Player Meetings Report - April 2013

i think its time to boycott stars until they fix this plo rake thingy! even if they plan on fixing it which i doubt it will only give them incentive to do it or do it quicker.
hackprotech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 06:26 AM   #101
mme
old hand
 
mme's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: true anti-HUD rainbows
Posts: 1,479
Re: PokerStars Player Meetings Report - April 2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokie View Post
I've thought about this whole stack identity idea and I'm trying to define it better and this is my suggestion:

Every player on the site has 6 initial saved stack identities, A, B, C, D, E and F. Each stack identity saves at the point when the player leaves the table. These all last individually for 20 hours.

Now a 40bb player starts a session, he buys in at 4 tables with a 40bb stack size.

After 30 minutes, he has 87bb's, 45bb's, 50bb's and 42bb's. He quits all four tables.

He now has a saved stack identity portfolio of A:87, B:45, C:50, D:42, E:N/A, F:N/A for this player. The saved stack identity stops at 100bb's so if a player leaves with 140bb's, the identity gets saved as 100bb's in order to not force players to have to buy-in for higher than the table maximum where they may be uncomfortable playing super deep.

This same player then buys in at four new tables and the system forces the player to have the stack sizes which are the highest of all his saved stack identities, once all 6 slots have been saved.

The player clicks the min-buy in as he sits down at these four new tables.

Now buying in at 40bb's works for him at the first two new tables he sits down at, since he has identity E and identity F which are still spare and take precedent over the other saved identities. However the other two tables he sits down at automatically buy him in for 87bb's and 50bb's as these are his highest two saved identities.

He plays a bit longer and quits all four tables at 93bb's, 70bb's, 61bb's and 41bb's for identities E, F, A and C respectively.

The player's portfolio of identities now stands at A:61, B:45, C:41, D:42, E:93, F:70.

The player buys in at four new tables, and he is forced to buy-in at 93bb's, 70bb's, 61bb's and 45bb's as these are the highest four. If the player wants to open any additional tables, these are all set at his highest current identity, so if the player wanted to buy-in at eight tables all of a sudden, then his tables would be 93bb's, 70bb's, 61bb's, 45bb's, 42bb's, 41bb's, 93bb's and 93bb's in that order.

If he then plays at eight tables, and quits them all, then additional identities are saved as identity G and identity H, but when the player then buys back in at four new tables, then the highest four identities from A to H are used as his new buy-in levels.

After 20 hours of inactivity for an identity, that identity resets to N/A and now takes precedent as the players default stack size at a new table and the player is free to choose what he wants to buy-in at. These identities apply across all limits to stop a player getting 6 identities at $200NL and another 6 new identities at $100NL etc.

Having a limit of 6 initial identities means that the 40bb rakeback pros are forced to play deeper if they want to get in lots of volume, and it is high enough that the recreational players that only play a couple of tables at a time, won't notice anything and it won't effect how they want to play if they want to play short.
that's pretty much the idea, with one thing added i intentionally omitted:

i found that you can not force players to use a certain stack identity, because there is always a way to get at the identity in the queue with the lowest BBs by hanoiing your stacks around.


http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=479
Quote:
Originally Posted by bookish View Post
OK, let me put forward an idea. I am assuming as above that nobody will rathole up the stakes.

The idea works by maintaining a stack (in the computing sense) of minimum buyins that you have to sit down with. Initially this would all be 40BBs, allowing you full flexibility to open up as many tables at 40BBs as you like. If you double up on one table and leave it the 80BBs is placed on the top of your stack and you have to buy in with this at any table at the same stake for the next 2(?) hours.

Now you could work around this using the strategy you mentioned if you aren't 24 tabling. Open a new table with the 80BB stack, join a second table with a 40BB stack and then close the just created 80BB table - maybe not having played a single hand - placing the value of 80BBs back on your stack. Lets call this Hanoiing, in this case with a depth of 1.

If the player now doubles up again, they will need to Hanoi with a depth of 2 (as they would have two 80BB entries on their stack), with a depth of 3 if they double up a third time and so on.

Hanoiing with any depth of above 3 strikes me as something which your software would be able to detect fairly easily, and is actually permanently preventable by limiting this player's maximum allowed number of tables to the number they regularly play. So if they usually play 12 tables and have a history of ratholing just enforce a 12 table cap. If they start hanoiing while playing 10 tables you can reduce it further. I'd have thought this could be enforced in a fairly automatic fashion after an initial warning email is sent.
then..
i assume you took 6 identities for the sake of the example. if not, it has to be MaxTables you are given in a certain time period.
mme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 06:58 AM   #102
PokerStars Poker Room
 
PokerStars Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 2,952
Re: PokerStars Player Meetings Report

Quote:
Originally Posted by G1lius View Post
What multiplier are you using for this? x4?
Per Nick: FL *Big Bet* size of either 4x or 5x the *Big Blind* size of the NL/PL stake depending on how the specific stakes we offer lined up.
PokerStars Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 07:04 AM   #103
banned
 
Pokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 5,098
Re: PokerStars Player Meetings Report - April 2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by mme View Post
that's pretty much the idea, with one thing added i intentionally omitted:

i found that you can not force players to use a certain stack identity, because there is always a way to get at the identity in the queue with the lowest BBs by hanoiing your stacks around.


http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=479


then..
i assume you took 6 identities for the sake of the example. if not, it has to be MaxTables you are given in a certain time period.
I think my method addresses this 'hanoiing' concept, because you cannot get rid of a saved stack identity that is above 40bb's, unless you replace it with an identity that is higher than that amount, not lower.

For instance, if a players' current identities are A:85, B:80, C:80, D50, E:50, F:40 and they buy-in at 24 tables, (going well over their identity limit), then the first six tables that they buy-in for have 85bb's, 80bb's, 80bb's, 50bb's, 50bb's and 40bb's, but then the next 18 tables are all bought in at 85bb's each as that is the highest amount of all their 6 current identities.

Then when they quit all 24 tables, that player will have 24 new saved identities and any new tables they join after this, the game will force them to start with stack sizes that are the highest in this identity list, and not the lowest. If the player has lowered all his stack identities down to the minimum, then that will only be because he has lost loads of money and turned his 85bb starting stacks into 40bb's, so a player can exploit the system and manipulate the saved stack identities that way but only because he's lost money in the process, so he isn't really gaining anything by doing so.

The reason for the initial 6 identities is to allow each player a certain, small amount of daily ratholing to please the recreational players that like to play short, but to stop the 40bb shortstackers from constantly ratholing.

I don't see how this can be exploited, does this address the issue that you are raising? You seem to be thinking that there is a 'queue' with the stack identities, but there is only a queue for the first 6, (which buys in at the largest first anyhow), and then from the 7th identity onwards, you are forced to buy-in with the first identity amount, (which is the highest of your current six), for every additional table.

I think it is better to set the amount of identities to a specified amount, say 6 or so for every single player, rather than choosing the amount to be equal to however many tables that player 'usually plays', since that is arbitrary and can vary depending on the player, as a regular player might play 10 tables when he is fully focused, and 5 tables when he is reading emails and surfing the internet etc.

Last edited by Pokie; 05-20-2013 at 07:20 AM.
Pokie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 08:08 AM   #104
mme
old hand
 
mme's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: true anti-HUD rainbows
Posts: 1,479
Re: PokerStars Player Meetings Report - April 2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokie View Post
I think my method addresses this 'hanoiing' concept, because you cannot get rid of a saved stack identity that is above 40bb's, unless you replace it with an identity that is higher than that amount, not lower.

For instance, if a players' current identities are A:85, B:80, C:80, D50, E:50, F:40 and they buy-in at 24 tables, (going well over their identity limit), then the first six tables that they buy-in for have 85bb's, 80bb's, 80bb's, 50bb's, 50bb's and 40bb's, but then the next 18 tables are all bought in at 85bb's each as that is the highest amount of all their 6 current identities.

Then when they quit all 24 tables, that player will have 24 new saved identities and any new tables they join after this, the game will force them to start with stack sizes that are the highest in this identity list, and not the lowest. If the player has lowered all his stack identities down to the minimum, then that will only be because he has lost loads of money and turned his 85bb starting stacks into 40bb's, so a player can exploit the system and manipulate the saved stack identities that way but only because he's lost money in the process, so he isn't really gaining anything by doing so.

The reason for the initial 6 identities is to allow each player a certain, small amount of daily ratholing to please the recreational players that like to play short, but to stop the 40bb shortstackers from constantly ratholing.

I don't see how this can be exploited, does this address the issue that you are raising? You seem to be thinking that there is a 'queue' with the stack identities, but there is only a queue for the first 6, (which buys in at the largest first anyhow), and then from the 7th identity onwards, you are forced to buy-in with the first identity amount, (which is the highest of your current six), for every additional table.

I think it is better to set the amount of identities to a specified amount, say 6 or so for every single player, rather than choosing the amount to be equal to however many tables that player 'usually plays', since that is arbitrary and can vary depending on the player, as a regular player might play 10 tables when he is fully focused, and 5 tables when he is reading emails and surfing the internet etc.
your idea is good and is somewhat similar to mine, except you force players to buy-in with the maximum BBs they hold in one of their stacks after using up X slots. nothing wrong with that. but as i (and steve) said, forcing to buy-in with the maximum stack is pretty arbitrary and there is no good answer to the question why max and not average or something else.

this question is answered quite naturally when you always keep track of individual stacks. you chose to split yourself up into more than one player. each (sub)identity is assigned a stack. this individual stack gets tracked throughout the time period.

emphasis is on "no good answer". say a governemt regulator asks you this question, you have to come up with a good answer: why is your site forcing players to put more money on the table than they intended in a way that is automated by your site?

Last edited by mme; 05-20-2013 at 08:14 AM. Reason: additional thought
mme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 08:12 AM   #105
journeyman
 
GiveHug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: burritosss
Posts: 216
Re: PokerStars Player Meetings Report

Quote:
Originally Posted by eldodo42 View Post
taking stacks larger than 100bb off the table is not considered as ratholing
just freeze those 40bb donks accounts and leave everything as it is
GiveHug is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive