The problem isn't shortstacking. It's true that fish like to buy-in for for odd amounts. No need to stop them from doing this. Forcing fish to buy-in for 80+bb might actually cause them to go bust much much quicker which could be bad for the games. There needs to be balance. Regs obviously need to have reasonable edges in games against bad players. I think that even at the micros where rake plays a more significant role, regulars have pretty huge edges over recreational players sitting on a 40bb stack.

The problem is the ratholing. I love the idea of limiting the amount of times you can buy-in short in a given time frame. This way fish can continue buying in at a 100NL tables for $43.75 and the 40bb pros can go play cap, learn 100bb poker, or just go f*** themselves.

tl&dr Pokie's post, but I think we should respect the wishes of players like him to keep the games healthy

Good thread...If i was to pick one thing that bothers me most in online poker nowadays it would easily be the number of pro shortstackers, and all the problems they create including miles long waiting lists, ratholing, causing recreational players to get this picture of Internet poker of being dominated by bots or "Russian mafia" and obviously just killing the fun of playing post flop poker. I think the situation got to the point where some kind of action is really necessary before all the tables look like the one below

[IMG] Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]

Teh SS's could learn to play with 100bb. If they don't have a bankroll for playing 100bb they could play a lower stake.

I agree with this

Why not just say if you leave any table of a certain stake and have enough in your account to afford it, you're required to buy in for what you left that table with, up to 100bb? That way they can still buy in for 40bb, but if they double up to 80bb now they can't buy in for <80bb again at any table of those stakes unless it's all the money in their account. This way it would actually enforce the rule in a way that's more universally understandable. Poker rooms don't let you move from one 5/10 table with 5k to another one and go down to $500 (assuming $500 min). So why should you be able to do that online?

+ wan mirrion

esp the live analogy

Say a fish sits with $50, doubles it to $100 then doubles again to $200.

Under the current rules, a common thing that happens is that they quit the table and go join a new table with $50. Then they'll often lose it and keep reloading until they bust. Under Zac's proposed rule I think they would be more likely to just stop playing for the day, and even withdraw some of their winnings during their "cooling off" period.

Maybe I'm overthinking it though. Thoughts?

Unlike Vince Wille, I'm not exactly loving the live analogy.

Online and live poker are different mediums; in live poker you aren't allowed to play more than one table, so why should you be able to do that online?

I like the idea, even if it was only up to 65BB.

I think the live analogy is great, most guys are saying the idea Stars proposed is to complex and would be too hard to explain to rec players, but most rec players can relate to live play/rules pretty well and shouldn't have a problem understanding this, some might actually like the idea of being able to keep their stacks when they move tables.

zachvac's idea is pretty good too and I would be totally fine if it were implemented. The other idea about the number of times you can buy-in short in a 24 hour time frame is still a bit better imo because it changes nothing from the recreational player's point of view. The rules would never confuse them because they would not apply to the vast majority of rec players. How many rec players are going to buy-in short on more than 24 tables in say a 24 hour time frame? Not very many. Rec players' can still keep doing what they're doing. Allowing THEM to rathole a few times a day might be better for the games because it can keep them in action longer with their deposits and they will then be more likely to deposit.

If they double up to 80bb and are forced to continue playing with an 80bb stack regardless of what table they're at it might turn them off of the game a bit, by making them go busto quicker.

applause.gif

You're approaching it from the angle of "how can we make sure we win the most from the fish". I'm approaching it more from the angle of "how can we make sure the ratholing loophole is not exploited?". Obviously we all would be happy if the poker room made different rules for fish and shortstackers, but the reality is a fish ratholing to another table is almost exactly the same as a shortstacker ratholing and joining another table, so to allow that while disallowing shortstackers from doing the same would be a bit wrong imo. Also If the fish wants to buy into the new table for $50 they can move down in stakes. I already said I think there should be some cap (I suggested 100bb, vini suggested 65bb, that can be discussed) where you can go down to that amount if you had higher than that stack at the table. For example if you're 24-tabling as soon as you got one 500bb stack having to buy into every subsequent table with 500bb+ would be ******ed and impractical. I just used 100 because it's the current max but yeah I'm not set on it as the cap, a cap just clearly is needed at some point.

and it shouldnt. it can and should be simple
yes and no. they want the rake but they obv want long term health of the games.
its been said before but other than raising the min buy-in there is a simple solution

make rat holing game/stake wide. problems solved

1. set table min buy in
2. set table max buy in
3. set individual table rathole timer for 2 or 3 hours. cant go south at all on tables you win
4. set stake-wide rathole timer for 24 hours. if you leave a table you must join a new table (of same game/stake) with either what you left the previous table with or the max buy-in (or obv the min bi)

1,2 and 3 are already in place

-this would not restrict any rec players from buying in for random amounts
-this would allow for rec players to run up a stack and multi table if they choose
-this would allow short stackers to play short stacked and ease them in to big boy poker. customer retention
-table max buy-in prevents regs from even more predatory behavior (buying in to cover deep fish)

on paper it seems like a simple and logical solution. the message is clear. its poor cash game etiquette to win $ from your opponents then run/take it off the table and keep playing. if anyone sees any problems with this please bring it up for discussion

I've given it some more thought and I think you're probably right here. The max number of short buyins per time frame was the best up until your idea came along. If we go with the timeframe idea, it would solve things for small stakes for sure because in order for it to be a problem it has to be on a lot of tables, but I think we'd still see a bunch of players doing it at higher stakes on fewer tables and then that problem would have to be solved.

Good post.

I'm going to cross post some of this stuff over in the October meeting thread in the zoo.

I was just kinda playing Devil's advocate but now I've heard more about it I think it's a pretty good idea. Will be very interesting to see what Stars think and if anybody comes up with any big disadvantages that we've not thought of.

Something would also have to be put in place to avoid angle shooting this pretty easily.

First thing I thought of would be something like... Shortstacker doubles up to 80BB, leaves table, sits at .01/.02LHE table with his whole roll minus 40BB, returns to previous game and sits with 40BB because he has no more in his account, rinse/repeat. Just a thought.

+1

game/stakewide ratholing

tldr- WC rake change and health of ssfr

also someone needs to discuss rake again. the changes last year were an absurd cluster **** and the problem has not been fixed

the dealt system was not fair. although i liked it i can't disagree. the WC method is a complete load of bull****. shortstacking is annoying because they found a loophole. this rake change is filled with lies, stupidity and bull****. its more than annoying. iirc a pokerstars rep actually posted on 2p2 stating that players who were losing and having a bad run of cards would have an additional burden of not being credited for earning rakeback with WTA. this has to be a load of ****. someone please produce some math on the difference in rakeback between running normal and say a 20 bi downer on WTA vs WC. please show me where this will make any sort of reasonable difference or even matter in the big scheme of things

Rake gets taken out of the pot. under the current system "the pot"= players who put money in the pot. thats bull****. the pot doesnt belong to anyone. it belongs to nobody until the hand is won and at that point it belongs to the winner. rake is not being taken from everyone who put $ in the pot. it is being taken from the pot, which belongs to the winner. yes you can claim the rake is being taken any way you want but we all know whats really happening.

if i wager $100 and lose, i lose $100. if i win i get $198. no matter how you divide up the rake thats what happens. whos paying the rake?

say both players get %50 rakeback.

WC
abc wagers $100 and loses $99.50.

xyz wager $100 and win $198.50.

thats bull**** and you know it

WTA (winner take all)

abc wager $100 and loses $100

xyz wager $100 wins $199

you seriously cant tell me that a guy who wagers $100 and loses $100 is paying rake.

This is a bull****-cash-grab-nonsensical system. its a cash grab. this is the part that really pisses me off. its honestly on the level of all the bull**** cell phone companies pull.

we all know that the $ distribution from this new system goes from tighter players (who are your highest volume and most loyal customers) to pokerstars and fish. this also pisses me off. not only because its backwards to create a new system penalizing your most loyal customers. it pisses me off because the reward means nothing to fish. if the people structuring the games or stuffing their bank accounts full of rake don't understand this then bring in someone from the marketing department to explain the difference between value and perceived value. giving someone a discount or reward doesn't give them incentive if they don't realize or appreciate it. if you're going to reward fish a) do it fairly and b) make it something they care about or appreciate, like a reload bonus. when it comes to structuring and running your games people expect you to be fair and have integrity. save the smoke & mirrors and bull**** for the marketing department

imo pokerstars does a decent job reacting to problems. yeah you could do better but heres a thought. instead of reacting be more proactive.

lets look at 100NL full ring games

- how many $ millions do you rake from them alone each year?
- what % of the seats in those games are occupied by regs? (75%?)
- how much are these regs taking from the games?
- is that increasing or decreasing?
- at what point will they leave?
- whats the potential to grab customers from other sites?

i've made a half ******ed post about how poker is an eco system, but its true. to have a huge player pool to rake from long-term you need to have a healthy balance. if you screw it up the player pool will shrink and obv the rake will too

there are 3 players in the eco system. the fish, the regs, and the pokersite. a few years ago the better players (regs) were crushing the games. 2.5- 3.5 pt bb/100 was common. winrates are dropping and games continue to get harder. its a trend that can only be fixed by adding more fish. but wait. regs winrates are dropping but pokerstars winrate is still the same. while regs are feeling the squeeze pokerstars is still crushing. pokerstars has a winrate (rake) and they are sitting at every single table 24 hours a day, crushing. when they switched to WC their winrate actually went up.

-the skill and $ jump from 100NL and 200NL is big (double ldo)
-how is inflation going to affect 100NL?
-at what point will earnings at 100NL = working retail?
-how will that affect the player pool?

what would happen if pokerstars reduced its winrate?

-would that attract customers from other sites?
-would that increase the volume of existing customers?
- would that be enough to convert 50NL regs to 100NL etc?
-would that keep regs from leaving and pursuing $ elsewhere?

what i'm getting at is not that WTA is only more fair but giving back to regs (who occupy the majority of the seats) might actually be very positive to the long term health of the games and profits.

if i was running small stakes cash games my basic model would be to create healthy player pool and build on that by winning customers from other sites. that would be achieved by making sure we were had plenty of fish, regs had incentive to play, and we had a reward system that retained customers (iron man type stuff).

sorry if this is in the wrong thread

I don't completely understand all the ecosystem arguments there but +1 on rake being based on who actually pays the rake (wins the pot). It was kinda funny when their argument on switching to the model they do is "it's closer to equal to who actually pays the rake". Just change it exactly to who pays the rake and you get to 100% equal. It's not that hard and it honestly boggles my mind that no site that I know of does rb that way.

not sure if this is relevant. just some fish complaining about shorties

dat hud