In this post and your other post at #19 you mention problems. Isn't the core of the problem short stack poker? And what I mean by that, do most all of the problems go away if the minimum buy-in wasn't so low? Or at least make the rat hole issue mostly go away?

In your opinion, would the problems be exactly the same OR mostly eliminated if the game was run 100bb min/max buy-in?

Also in the above post you mention something about "deep" and I wouldn't mind some clarification on what you consider "deep" as you mentioned, "some fish don't like deep." I consider 100bb a "full" stack and the doubling of that to 200bb a "deep" stack. And it is an important point to all of this because even fish/recs call games by their 100bb designation i.e. $1/2 PLO is often called $200 PLO even by fish. Therefore anyone and everyone who wants to play $200 PLO is buying in for exactly $200, anyone and everyone who wants to play $5,000 PLO is buying in for exactly $5,000. If Zoom, especially Zoom-only is ushering in a new era of poker, maybe it is time to usher that new era in with 100bb min/max full stack poker. And at any time if people get "deeper" than a "full" 100bb stack they can rat hole to their hearts content. Thoughts?

There is a 100bb minbuyin/ante zoom option aswell in the lobby, but it very clearly is not as popular as the 40-100bb one. Why is that? I think it is because more weak players like this one, and therefore the stronger players join to play with these. You are suggesting to remove the 40-100bb one completely, FORCING the action to be deepstacked, risking some recreational players quitting completely, I expect you need to provide pokerstars with some serious upsides to this for them to take that risk? Action is good, recreational players do not bust as quickly, winrates for good regs are lower but still descent, unless you give some really good reasons I don't see why Pokerstars should do this. From what I've seen, mostly the strong deepstack-regs are the ones complaining, these are also the ones Pokerstars really doesn't need to keep the games running and continue profiting. In fact I'd like it wayyy more if all the action was 100bb min ante, but when I put things into perspective and don't think about my own profit but at the whole picture, that is a selfish thought.

Zoom certainly has some problems, but things have gotten WAY more fair, taking out players who were purely able to profit by taking table selection to the extremes(with or without seating scripts). Also many pros required at least one recreational player for every five pros to have a game running, when now one fish might keep the action going for 20 pros.

I still haven't heard too many good solutions to the ratholing problem as my biggest worry is always how recreational players react to changes, already one thing I fear is that Zoom is too different to what they are used to poker being when they walk into a live casino, having the same seat and developing history with players who keep their own seats, being able to chat with them etc..

Errh... Give the fish the opportunity to shortstack and rathole if they want it.

Yeah that was whats proposed. Pokerstars just fail to implement it as promised.

Cool that you join the discussion Jens.

Nick, Baard or Lee Jones can probarly give us an headsup about the timelines to implement this promised anti rathole solution.

I think 50-100bb no ante its a good compromise for the games. There was a clear majority in this community that wanted that as well. And as Jeans say, I also think its within what the rec are willing to buy in for. I actually think they most of all want to play, gamble and have fun.

I'm more for a high enough min. buy-in solution to this problem. But it would be interesting to know how often fish/recs are in the pool for multiple entries (that info is hidden at higher stakes). Because maybe just maybe if the biggest separation because fish and regs is the number of entries then a x number of rat holes per hour could help/allow for fish rat holing their 1 entry often but would limit regs too often trying to rat hole his 4 entries.

For illustrative purposes only (not saying these are ideal numbers), after the 4th rat holes in a 60 minute span, while trying to rat hole a 5th time you get a pop up that says, "you have already rat holed 4 times in last hour, you have to re-enter with you previous stack of $x.xx or wait another 30 minutes before being able to buy-in for minimum."

B-u-t, I'm not interested in forcing a time penalty on people or forcing them to play a stack too big for their liking. Duh, I prefer a minimum buy-in set properly and boom end of story.

I cringe at putting a time penalty on a fish. Really? You want to tell a fish they can't play for the next 30 minutes? Really? Anyone who is for that idea...really?

I cringe at forcing people to play a stack size too large for their liking after winning a nice sized pot.

I also cringe when some calls 100bb "deep", my lexicon calls 100bb full and 200bb deep.

What doesn't make me cringe is saying that 40bb and even 50bb is too damn low for the minimum buy-in on a game with instantly available rat holing. Even min. buy-in 75bb is way better.

It does seem fishes rarely use up all 4 entries at the same time. Perhaps you could buy-in for the min-buyin 4 times, as in all the entries, but after that the stacksizes would stick for 1 hour?

Also the 50bb min-buyin is probably fine for the recs, while making the games better so I like it.

Full Tilt Poker Game #33659483395: Table Timber Rose (6 max, shallow) - PL Omaha Hi - $25/$50 - 20:24:10 ET - 2013/12/20
Seat 1: sillen30 ($4,596.50)
Seat 2: MagicOcean ($5,592.90)
Seat 3: POKERBLUFFS ($950)
Seat 4: DIN_FRU ($5,653.75)
Seat 5: wookzzone ($1,676)
Seat 6: Ingenious89 ($277.50)




Some form of auto topup needs to be forced, imo playing with 40bb stacks is fine, playing with sub 10bb stacks isn't.

I would def support the idea of players having the ability to rathole 3 times with a new entry, and then having all 4 entries not being able to rathole. This way the fish with one entry would be able to rathole 3 times but the regs couldn't keep doing it all day. Brilliant!

removing our core weapon?

It just needs to be packaged up in a way everyone can understand. Plus this could kill two birds with one stone. The original "stack overhaul" thread was asking for a way to keep your deeper stack without losing it after a short break or time bank break/reset. So maybe something like if you leave and then re-enter within an hour it asks if you want your previous stack size or new entry. The 4 entries make for what seems like an easy method to handle this. I'm thinking the second you close an entry it is lock into that stack size for the next hour, so loosely 4 rat holes per hour. The way I read (I'm not speaking for you but rather trying to clear up my confusion) but Jeans and GGRJ it seems you guys might be suggesting just 4 rat holes a day...if that is what you meant, I don't think that is gonna fly. I think each entry getting a rat hole per hour would be huge improvement over the 16 rat holes I was able to count one reg did in under an hour.

Coding would involve the 4 entries A, B, C and D.

fwiw, Jeans saying shallow PLO is about more than preflop is something we all no doubt agree on. Later he says he would prefer 100b min ante games - a format where his skills would shine over 4 streets as opposed to 2.

It's sad to see yet another high stakes pro succumb to the cynical view of "can't beat 'em, join 'em". He wants to play deep PLO, but is forced to do what he can to maximize EV.

Are we really powerless to change this trend as a community? I argue the opposite, and the ratholing timer after the first 4 entries are in play is a big step forward in the quest for healthier games.

This is your assertion, not Jeans'.

It sounds like a lot of people are suggesting a solution which involves cap games - perhaps 40-50-60bb cap and 100-150bb Ante cap solutions wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

Thing is, the person with the smallest stack always has the biggest edge. Even 100bb stack has an advantage at a table of 200bb stacks. The only solution to this is capped betting, otherwise you have to live with it. An enforced auto-top-up is a solution that Stars will never even look at.

Sure. I thought it was obvious given his preference of deep ante. Do you disagree that shallow PLO is played mainly over 2 streets? I felt comfortable stating that as a fact.

While the deeper stacks are the more likely you are to reach a river, I think you'd be incorrect assuming that not many turns and rivers are played in 40bb cap.

I think it should be noted that the bigger the minimum stack size, the faster people will get better at poker.

This is incorrect. You get away with smaller cbet sizing usually, and there are a ton of good turn barreling spots as a bluff as people tend to chk/call very weak cause they can get most of their stack in with a c/r on the flop. Also alot of turn spots where you have to make a close decision on whether to bet the turn with the risk of being raised all-in vs checking it back and realizing your equity which then again leads to tough river situations and so on so on.

Sounds good, 4 ratholes per hour would already help a lot as you probably don't wanna "use up" your rathole on a 50bb stack, so the average stack depth would rise from that aswell. Maybe a 2 hour timer would be better tho then.

I've played a decent amount at 40bb eff as well while grinding midstakes. I don't want to argue that turn or river play doesn't exist for shallow stacks. But the fact that they exist doesn't make shallow PLO equally weighted towards turn/river as 100bb+ play.

I kinda feel like this is a silly argument to have anyways, if we all agree that a good/fair solution would be limiting ratholing to 2hrs/entry for all 4 entries, let's start advocating for that as a group.

I'm in.

I suggest when you go to join a pool you get something like a popup showing the 4 entries choices (if currently not at any tables) and any requirements. For example,

Pick which entry you would like to play

Entry A, re-join with $8,752
Entry B, re-join with $9,436
Entry C, new 40bb-100bb (50bb-100bb)
Entry D, new 40bb-100bb (50bb-100bb)

When the time limit expired on entries A and B they would revert back to listed as 40bb-100bb (50bb-100bb).

It is not in stars best interest to introduce a rathole timer when zoom is the only option and you lose certain fish after they've lost their 4 entries. Stars also risks alienating regs and fish alike with a system like that. 25/50 and 50/1 are BIG games that a lot of regular players in that pool may not be rolled for. Having to limit your hands/hr if you don't want to play 6 buy ins deep at big stakes is annoying and will undoubtedly cause a portion of regs / fish to want to leave with that entry. Of course this hurts stars since less hands will be played. Deeper stacks also hurts stars bottom line. There's no way that change will be on stars radar.

Iirc one of the first times zoom reached 30 entries na.sud was playing and ratholing for hours. One example, but this is still very significant and hurts everyone if he cannot rejoin.

You can't really have it all in this zoom only system unless by some miracle deep ante ran. Anyone wanna tell me why it doesn't run? There's enough people in these threads that are pro deep / ante to start a game. Oh you don't want to play in a game with Hero 1, 2, 3, and 4. You want to play with nas.ud? He wants to play shallow.

The above could also very well be wrong. Of course there are some fish who will just join the regular pool because there are already players there. Maybe they want to play deep. There is more incentive to play what you want and believe is best (deep).

Doorbread/Deldar. People are not even arguing the latest known idea from Pokerstars about the ratholing subject.

As far as I can remember. The fishes was supposed to get way more then 4 entries, in a 18-24hr hour period, think it was 20-24 single entries over that period, while professional ratholers would have harder time to abuse the system.

So he could rathole if he wished lots of times in the proposed solution. He would rarely need more rathole possibilites anyway. But you think he really would quit or stop rejoining as long as he had money if he had no option (he sometimes fullstack as well)?

If Pokerstars at least changed it back to 50bb min, shortstacks get less edge, so constant ratholing is less bad (but still not OK in my opinion).

Last point. Pokerstars care about the integry of the game, and might think excessive ratholing is not part of the game as they want it. Actually they was pretty clear about that last year.

Auto top up? Come on that will never happen nor should it.

i really like this

You all assume that Stars want healthy 25/50+ games. I think it's quite the opposite and they'll be very happy with 10/20 being the highest stakes played.

FWIW pokerstars is antiratholing

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...8&postcount=22

But as usual they open a line of discussion, get everyones opinions, come up with some ideas, and then disappear to never be heard from again. Its great that we all come together as a community to voice our opinions, but when we are dropping ideas into an empty wishing well it becomes pretty pointless.

As for these discussion we need to be arguing about whats best for the players. And that is to have a fair game that has a good winrate that isn't raked to death. I've got a strong feeling after a big sample these 25.50 zoom winrates are going to be abysmal. I've looked over some smaller samples of 2.5/5 zoom winrates and compared to the normal games its grim. I hate the competitive nature of the lobby as much as the next guy, but what I hate even more is making pokerstars rich. These zoom games are going to destroy regs. You've got the fish losing money at the same rate, and 4x as many regs fighting for that $$$.

And please stop mentioning one fish tendencies and acting like that is the standard. This talk of nas.ud is hilarious. I've seen the guy drop 5 buyins at 25.50 one day then the next day play 2.4. He doesn't care what games there are, he just wants to play poker. You have a massive sample of one time he played zoom and rat holed so therefore we must make games able to be ratholed. Look at the bigger picture argue for game structures that are profitable for you, and let pokerstars do their part through marketing and get the fish in the games.

The list of fish who semi-regularly play highstakes is pretty short. It doesn't matter if it's standard or not. If you find a way to turn a handful of fish off, you are losing a lot of money as they will play less or move down. It's more profitable for me if games run around the clock. Saying a fish who can get 30 people to play zoom including major bumhunters and shot takers is significant. You realize he dumps high six figures in plo a year, right?

The winrates will also be smaller, but you will also get more hands in less hours. Some regs won't be able to win at zoom and they will be forced to move down. These people have something to be angry about, but stars is unlikely to feel a need to cater to them as they bring nothing to the table for them. It's not fair that it's not 200x anymore, but you have to play the hand ur dealt l-o-l.

edit: also him losing at 25/50 one day and playing 2/4 the next doesn't mean that he just wants to play. it means that he has deposit limits

also this

You missed my point, which is their are a slew of fish out there. All of them might have different preferences, and an even bigger group of them just want to play poker no matter what the format. We shouldn't go around making the only available option to play poker ONE format because ONE fish played zoom ONE time and decided to rathole. Make games that are good for the majority, the fish will still come.