Hi everyone,

I created this poll to give Pokerstars representatives an indication of PLO players’ wishes regarding the minimum buy-in for the PLO standard cash money tables, which currently have minimum buy-in of 30bbs and maximum buy-in of 100bbs. I believe a poll is a good the good way to get a popular opinion regarding the issue at hand, rather than opinions scattered in multiple threads in various subforums.

The topic has been discussed in this thread on Internet poker subforum (most of the opinions start from post #712 but there are PLO related comments elsewhere in the thread too. I will not quote them here). We will move the PLO discussion to this thread from now on. I will notify the Internet poker thread of this fact.


You can cast your vote by selection an option (only one) on the poll above and if you wish to leave your comments/reasoning in this thread, please go ahead. I would highly appreciate if the voters were actual PLO players, preferably playing the Pokerstars games in question.

The poll is open for 4 days, after which I will make a concluding statement/summary and send it to Pokerstars representative via PM, and also post the same statement in this thread.

Please keep the discussion in this thread for MINIMUM BUY-IN FOR STANDARD TABLES ONLY and let’s leave the other topics (HU, antes and table speed discussion) out of this thread. We’ll discuss those issues in due time. Thanks for understanding.

Thanks and regards,
napsus




--------

CONCLUSION from post #229

As a conclusion after the poll is closed, it seems like the vast majority (87.77%) of 2p2 members (majority of whom are very active players) want to minimum buy-in at the Pokerstars PLO cash tables to be raised.

Of the 87.77% majority who want the minimum buy-in to raised, most voters see the 50bb minimum buy-in as the preferred option, while 65+bb and 40bb options received some votes too.

Based on the conversation it seems that consensus is that the 30bb minimum is too small because it's already effecting the flow of the game, especially at midstakes (and higher) where the problem is imminent. The 65+bb option received votes too, but the general feeling is that this would be too high, as it would affect recreational players too much and probably cause confusion.

50bb minimum buy-in received the most votes and was strongly defended with arguments from several high stakes players. 40bb was seen as an option too (11% of players who voted for raise in min buy-in voted for 40bb option), but it didn't receive as many votes as 50bb minimum buy-in (70% of all who voted to raise min buy-in).

The Pokerstars suggestion of "If players were not able to consistently buy in for the minimum, leave after gaining chips, and buy-in for the minimum again at another table... would the current 30bb minimum buy-in still be a big issue for players?" didn't seem to be very popular and was seen problematic by posters who commented on it.

FTP has tables with 75bb minimum buy-in, so how would 2p2 members feel about a "2p2 consensus compromise" of 45bb in case Stars is not willing to listen to 2p2 majority and make it 50bb? This would be a round a number at most stakes (excluding $0.02/0.05 and $0.25/0.50).

40,50>>>30>>>65+.

50 >>> 65+ >>> 40 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 30

Agreed. I think 65+ is pushing it and just unnecessary. Remember, we don't want to tailor games to our exact preferences and chase off everyone who doesn't wish to conform. That would be silly. We just want to put an end to the leeching and exploiting behaviour that 30bb stacks pollute the game with. I voted 50bb.

not trolling, but im pretty sure ive seen you shortstacking 5/10 a decent amount over the last few months.

I think blopp said in a recent post that even though he has been shorting some games lately he still prefers and believes in higher minimum buyins. I think the same would apply to a lot of players. Watch the highest stakes games and you'll see plenty of what most would consider to be "the best" PLO players buying in for the minimum. That doesn't mean they're hypocritical for wanting the minimum increased. It could be that they're buying in short to mitigate their disadvantage vs other shortstackers, or out of bankroll considerations, or whatever really.

y i get that obv, if there'd been one less ">" before the 30 id've left it alone

Roy is spot on. I def have shorted midstakes+ when its most EV and / or to be prepared to play highstakes. I played quite a bit cap as well pre BFI on FTP.

Im open about quite a bit of my volume being short and that I play in short only games. Posted this in internet poker a few days ago where I quantify it as 1/3 of yearly volume (that Ive not checked just guestimating).

This is obvs my opinion, and I respect others think differently.

i think a big reason cap games failed at stars is that they didnt go with the ftp 40bb system. i used to quite enjoy grinding cap when i was hungover/slightly off game/not really in mood to think that hard etc.

I do also shortstack abit myself (30bb) beacuse I think its the most +EV thing to do in some situations, but this doesnt mean that I support 30bb min buyin, because I think it ruins the game.

+1 to 50-100bb, and 100-250ante

Where's the 20BB option? :P

But I do currently shortstack the majority of the time at high stakes to reduce variance. Seriously agree with people that 40 is probably best all around (to keep recreational players happy). Although I would like it to be 50. Anything higher will be terrible for the games I think.

I want 50 BB

Here is my post about this issue.

Extra notes-

I would like to point out that although it is a popular opinion that the minbuy should be raised, those supporting it are unable to provide a valid reason as to why. Mostly the reason is "it would suit me better".

"Shortstackers are ruining the games, but I don't want to play ante games, because theres not enough fish in ante games. Therefore, the solution is to make the fish buyin with more money and move down".

Personally, I'd prefer 40bb. The reason fulltilts buyin system works is because the shallow buyin does not exceed the cap game buyin. Ultimately, All the players follow the fish, and the fish like shortstacking. The only discussion here should be how to facilitate this best.

when was the last time u played deep witout a billionare at the table ?

Deldar for president. Bring back the 20bb shove fest.

What data do you have to corroborate your sayings. I personally see way more fishes playing 50-100bb than 30-50bb. Sure fishes like to play short but not 20bb short.

People like you who want to keep the BI shorts aren't doing it either for the fishes. You are doing it because you want to use that mathematical edge it gives you over the others regs playing full. Just my 2 cents. Not sure you are really the type to play full stacked vs a line up of studs. Are you the type to start tables as well ?

nits gonna nit

I think it's unlikely that PS will just increase the buyin to whatever people here are asking without trying to accommodate those who want to shortstack, if a 50bb min game is indeed created, it will result in the games back to like it was last year, a shallow game and a standard game.

You guys can cry then.

Not saying that 20bb is more popular, but the shallow games on FTP(20-40bb) are without a doubt, more popular than 40-100 games. If you can't see from this fact that shallow is so much more popular than deep games, I'm done arguing.

40>>30>50>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>65 for me.

I think the games are pretty healthy right now, so I dont think anything should be really changed.

If anything should be changed it should be the antes that make up 1/10th of the action. make them more appealling for people to start. I dont get why everyone in here preaches that they love them but wont start games vs each other. Well, i do know, its because there arent any fish playing them because most dont like them, so you're not willing to play in a tougher game.

Id suggest maybe lowering the ante buyin to 80bbs and reducing the % of the ante.

This poll is also biased, as it just takes the pros opinion, which will of course be to increase it, as it gives everyone more of an edge over the recreational players.

Look at the 25 50 games at any given time. 25/50 action is totally sick- games run round the clock.

Now remove all the players with less than 100bbs.
Now remove all the players with less than 70bbs.
Now remove all the tables without massive fish.

tadaaaaa

ps. you got some interesting views for someone I've never played

Lol where did I talk about 100-250 ? I hate 100-250. Too many blinds have to go in with medium pairs

And I have not much vs fish shortstacking, I have against the pro ratholer SSer, who hits and run and make the game unplayable at 1/2-2/4. It's not uncommon to have 3 of these pro at 1 table during the day. I know you guys prefer to bumhunt and play 20bbs when the tables are too tough and are trying to make us believe you are doing it for the fishes and not your bottom line but c'mon at least stop hiding behind your nobles virtues.

good post

A fair conclusion to draw from this poll would be that "many 2+2 posters dislike shortstackers", which is relatively useless.

Summarized:
I like fish who shortstack
I don't like regs who shortstack
Ante games are tough, because theres no shortstacks

ok

Your cliffs are that we all are selfserving circlejerking moron people. While you are the knight in shining armor caring about the games and fishes. Get real.

And while we are at it, if people get heavily bumhunted on the 6m ante tables they per definition need to be (reg)fishes. 3/6 on that list have been hunted pretty hard most year.

PS if fishes dont like it they will just migrate to FTP that will still offer all the cap and shallow games you like. (Can even insta transfer money there from Stars).

Stars have nothing to loose trying that out as FTP owner either.

This, I didn't even bother to vote yet cause it feels pointless. It's like trying to elect the US president by looking at the result of one state.

So, if you don't play full stack, you can GTFO of stars? That's racist.