To everyone saying the time period is too short or 24 times is too many:

I have been playing Zoom with 65bb. I have been sitting out when I pass 80bb. I think it takes me about 1500 hands to rathole 24 times, which is a small percentage of the hands that I will play in a day. Furthermore, in the past 30 days I have gone without playing 18+ hours twice, so I would have been able to rathole 72 times a month with this new rule. I think it is an adequate solution to prevent ratholing.

I agree that ratholing is scummy at regular tables and decreases the enjoyment of other players and this is a great solution against it, but I don't think this should be implemented at Zoom. Ratholing doesn't negatively affect anyone since you aren't stacking someone and leaving the table and the minimum buy-in is higher so there's no advantage being shorter.

I'm not saying this because I rathole Zoom, but rather I have chose to rathole Zoom because I like to play with a short stack and I didn't think it was affecting others negatively.

To be fair, I do not play Zoom. I've tried it out in the beginning as I did with Rush and prefer normal tables for a number of reasons. Correct me if I'm wrong but normal and Zoom tables are the same games with a different environment which might warrant that they need to be treated differently. I could understand why a lot of 100bb ratholing would occur in Zoom since they never know what the line up and stack sizes will look like on the next table, and regulars want to reduce variance. At normal tables you no what the line up and stack sizes are going to look like at least 1 hand in advance. If the table is good, then most winning regulars will stay after building a big stack regardless of the fact that they are out of position against a better regular who is also deep.

At Zoom, you can deeper much faster because you can play just as many or more hands per hour with fewer stacks. On 24 regular tables a +10 buy-in session will typically leave you with your profits spread over a dozen or more tables whereas at Zoom it's over 8 at most and many times those 10 buy-ins are spread out over 4 tables.

Another thing about Zoom is there is no table or seat selection. Disallowing all ratholing ignoring the max buy-in would have a very different impact at Zoom than it would at regular tables because at regular tables good players could bum hunt deep fish harder by leaving one table and sitting down at the next super deep and ignore the max buy-in. I don't know how else to explain how this would likely be horrible for recreational players and therefore horrible for the games.

But aren't these 40bb grinders effectively taking away the option from both recreational and professional NLHE players to play NLHE by turning the tables into 40bb CAP? Let's face it, if you have a NLHE table with 9 players and 7 of them are short stacking ratholers, and the waitlist is 20 deep full of known shortstacking ratholers then you are effectively at a 40bb CAP table.

NLHE players have been deprived of playing NLHE for years now so gimme a break plz.

And also, all you people signing up on 2p2 cuz your comrades at Poker Strategy told you to can spare us all the BS. 40bb is not a preference. It's simply the easiest way to be a winning player. Playing short stacked at full stacked tables simply yields the highest hourly rate with the lowest possible skill level.

Not sure why I'm debating this as Stars has already acknowledged that ratholing is a problem. We're past that and now only have to figure out how to cleanse the problem.

I disagree with this. I started playing short stacked because I was getting coaching for it but I am continuing to play it because it is more fun than playing 100bb. I was a winning player before at 100bb. I'm sure a lot of players who do not buy in for 100bb do so because it's the easiest but there are also others who enjoy playing with a different stack size.

I'm not a ratholer. Not everyone is trying to push their own agenda. Very cute how you got so mad though.

My point was that if what is proposed goes through, there will be a 20bb and a 100bb option. It makes sense to have something in between, and there is a clear demand for ~40bb, so 40bb tables seem like a good thing to offer. You retorted by saying "well what about the people that want to play with 30bb!" Do you see why what you are saying is stupid?

With regards to the Zoom stuff - yes it's possible you are correct but either way it's speculation. My point was that most 100bb regulars would want to almost always sit at a table with 100bb. The only exception to this is if they have position on a recreational player who has more than 100bb. This happens relatively rarely.

With regards to the quoted part: if you make 20bb cap, 40bb cap, and 80bb min buy-in tables this will no longer be an issue. Does having a bunch of 40bb'ers at a table mess things up for people that want to play with 100bb's? Sure. But there are also 100-250bb tables where there are no ratholers. In your opinion, why do those barely run?

Either I don't understand you, or you don't understand Steve. You'd have been able to rathole around 675 times a month with this new rule: 24 times per day, minus the two days you didn't play. Every 18 hours your table identities reset, even if you used them for the whole 18 hours. You don't need to let them "cool down" by not playing for 18 hours.


How do you know that there is clear demand for 40bb? As LazyAce said, playing a 40bb stack when there are multiple 100bb stacks on the table is the easiest way to be a winning player. I'm not at all sure that if 40bb CAP tables were offered we'd see much demand for them. I believe most of the players playing 40bb are playing that size in order to exploit the deep stacks, not because they actually enjoy playing 40bb deep.

That wasn't my main retort and you can obviously see when someone is being flippant. I was basically pointing out that people like to play with a variety of stack sizes, there are still plenty of regs that buy in for under 100bbs (that isn't 40bbs) and rec players that buy in for a variety of stack sizes between 40 and 100. Stars 100% shouldn't be limiting what stacks fish can buy in for and these changes almost in no way affect their ability to do so. And now back to my main retort, It doesn't stop you buying in for 40bbs unless you persistently and systematically rathole, In which case the changes relatively provide the desired effect.

As you said in your own post, splitting the player pools further isn't good since it makes the lobby more cluttered and confusing, especially for rec players. Despite theories to the contrary, these changes seem 100% designed for the benefits of recreational player and in turn pokerstars image/health of the games, rather than as a way to punish short stackers. If it was a zero sum game then it wouldn't matter to stars whether deep stackers or short stackers lost out in these changes. But it is obvious, that to stars in the very least, these changes are part of a bigger non zero game picture, otherwise they really wouldn't give a **** about ratholing or making any changes in general. You obviously must appreciate this? Where the balance lies between what game varieties should/shouldn't be offered is difficult to judge but I assume they believe, like some posters in the thread, that the player pool can't currently stand further splitting. If it could, and could also provide a positive longterm ev then am sure stars would announce the creation of more game types. As it is, I would assume the reason they haven't is because at this time they believe further splitting to be negative ev. This may change in the future however.

It's also a shame that you didn't want to discuss your own table habits seeing as you are one of the more vocal high stakes 40bb players around. Would be interesting to see how players in your situation currently play/leave tables and how this would be affected under the future changes and you're probably the best person to provide details on this in the thread. Also I wasn't trying to be a dick in my reply to you btw, so cut out the name calling and taking my reply so literally, you are clever enough to realise when someone is being literal or flippant.

Oh I didn't think it was that because it wasn't really a solution to the problem. I see what everyone here is posting about now, it seems like too many ratholes.

ratholing solution sounds amazing and what I like the most about it, it's that it can be tweaked with just adjusting right numbers. wp

Game over russia

I'm against getting rid of 40bbrs and I think it's ridiculous that stars has a new definition of ratholing. getting rid of them will lower my entertainment ev


yep its hilarious. if i routinely had 40% of my tables being 40bbrs and I did not want to play with them I would go start deep ante games. What do the hysteric FR nits do though? whine to Stars. f clowns

Getting to play with various stack sizes makes poker more enjoyable for me.

how about u go start some deep ante games, oh wait - you have your ASS and only join games others start.

WTF is this. Since when is NLHE with 40bb effective stacks no longer considered NLHE. Some of the dribble you clowns posts is unbelievable. If you have a problem playing at a table with 7 short stackers get off the table..............................

I do not understand how you can come to the forum and whine about 7 40bbrs being at your table. Just get up. Go start a deep ante game. Problem solved.

DoubleD making some really good points would have been nice to see him at the meetings instead of natis who posted this nonsense.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=289

problems that exist in cap games stem from ratholing. LOLOLOL

This would piss off the RPs. Now we all know u don't care about that. Whining about a slight decrease in the time to act when the number one complaint from RPs is the games are too slow. incredibly short-sighted

Please don't have him go to a players meeting Stars.




Can we stop with the comparing of bb/100s in rake between plo and nlhe. Stars has posted they look at rake per hour, so PLO getting less hands/hr naturally should have a higher bb/100 rake. Why this gets ignored I have no idea.




PLO regs want lower rake @ SSPLO for a more sustainable long-term economy. ok raise it at plo5k+ (should be done anyway). e-z game do it up Stars.

Stars you should absolutely raise the rake when games are 6 handed at plo10k+. if you want to tell me Stars raking $5 (.0125bb) out of 100k pots @ plo40k is anything but a travesty while they rake $2(8bb) out of 50 pots @ plo25, i won't even get started.

Raise the rake at the nosebleeds wen 6 handed!

Good post sir, having said that
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM SHIVA

Shortstackers getting busted for multiaccounting sounds good to me

Are you being intentionally obtuse? I said that if this solution was introduced, when it comes to grinders there is an option for them to play with 20bb and 100bb, and nothing in between. Your response was that they can still rathole 675 times a month. Are you that dense? Clearly there is going to be a large impact on people that are trying to play with 40bb, if there wasn't then this 18 page solution wouldn't have been drafted in the first place.


If you actually believe this, why are you against 40bb cap tables? If what you are saying is true, then if 40bb cap tables were to be introduced, they would seldom be played on and would just become what the 100-250bb tables are now. I assume you wouldn't have a problem if this happened. Of course, the thing is, you very well know that if 40bb games were introduced, the bulk of the volume, or at least a substantial part of it, would be there.

Also what you are saying about 40bb players just being there for their mathematical edge sounds smart, but unfortunately doesn't fit with a lot of the evidence that the "no 40bb" bandwagon is presenting. I have seen several screenshots and posts describing 7/9 player at a table sitting with a 40bb stack. Do you see how your theory that they are just there to exploit the deep stacks doesn't hold true?

I don't currently nor have I ever systematically played with 40bb. I don't know where you are getting that idea from. The bulk of my volume currently is at cap games. Before that I played the 100bb games and bought in for the max. When 20-50bb games were around I used to play those too and buy in for the max.

Oh, I thought you used "I" in the literal sense, apologies. My point still remains valid that the reason for Stars implementing the solution is to get rid of those profession ratholers that you describe in your post. Which is what Stars, the recreational players and 99% of non-ratholing regs want.

Oh, are you joking? If recreational player doubles ang leaves the table - he is good. but if MSS reg leaves the table when doubled and for example recreational player has left the table - he is ratholer, scum and must be punished.

I see here only discrimination of 40bb players. Go start deep tables then.
But you want to see 40bb recreational but dont want to see 40bb MSS on your tables) Why 100 bb players think that they are god sons and poker was created and exists only for them?

bye bye shortdonker scum

I play fr nlhe and always buy in for 100bb.

I have no problem whatsoever with these shortstackers or ratholing. From my experience these players are pretty awful and very easy to play against. Seems to me the complaints are coming from regs who just aren't good enough to adjust.

The games are advertised as 40-100bb. So a player should be able to buy in for the amount they wish. It is also within a players right to leave a cash table whenever they like. No problem imo.

Leave it as it is. The good regs will continue to make money vs the shortstackers an the bad regs will continue to moan.

A lot of winning regs have been complaining about it.
I again ask any of the 40bb supporters here: name a single spot, preflop, postflop where the 40bb player has a stack disadvantage.
(many spots where they have an unfair advantage over the deepstack have been explained)

I used to play any 20 tables with no table selection whatsoever before this mass shortstacker invasion started.

MSS cannot win more than 40bb per one hand. And BSS can. And recreational players lose their money faster to BSS players. But this fact BSS players dont like to use when they moan)

Lol at only bad regs complaining about ratholers. You fancy comparing results? You have no idea what you are talking about in that respect and also when you say good regs (you?) make money vs professional ratholers. I would recommend you do some reading into this topic first rather than do further uninformed posts on this (if you are really a 100bb reg).

haha
looking forward to see people like this guy trying to play full-stacked
hilary ensued

very argumented interesting post

Shakeaway plays obv Micros.....so it's not that big problem for him.

Full-ring table selection is ruined with most tables having 3+ ratholing short stackers on, this really sucks. Sometimes I see tables with 8 or 9 on and I sarcastically 'lol'.

I haven't got a problem with any of the ratholing pr*cks individually per se, I respect their strategy and they have to do what they can do to make a profit; the issue for me is that there are just too many of them and as a result they make a lot of the tables boring and bad.

100% in favour of the anti-ratholing measures, they sound very sensible.