Admitting that this is the essence of their strat would cause a mutiny among their ranks. They have to keep talking like Steinbrenner.... "The amount of money we spend has no bearing on the pennant races. We have no advantage. Other teams can spend just as much if not more than we do"

[[doesn't always work out that bankroll wins....but often enough I suspect]]

Anyone know the actual time limit before being able to sit back at a table (ratholing)? How does FTP compare to Stars?

For me, this is the worst aspect of SS'ers. Occasionally you get regular players that do the same, double up and insta-quit (in those cases, they have often dropped a couple of buys in to get to that point, so lol them), but it is the very definition of SS'ing to instaquit and never allow an opponent to try and get their money back. This is within the rules of the game, but to round-robin all the tables with this tactic is really what annoys the regs and sits on the edge of the rules and ethics of poker (at least I think so).

Even the so-called nitty deepstacked regs (whoever they are!) don't insta-quit when they stack another player, giving them a chance to win their money back. This is really what I feel separates SS'ers from regular players just in general.

I think the shorties should stay. My solution:

"C" Cap games for 20-30BBs
Regular games for 40-100BBs
"D" Deep games for 100-200BBs

This way, all the thoughtful SSers who were so considerate of the fish can feed off the fish who want to buy into the shorter buy-in games. And all the bleeding hearts who claim to make money off of the shorter stacked fish and bad short stackers can also join in. People who actually want to play multi-street poker now can do so without being annoyed. The shorties stay, players from other sites will come to FT and FT just profits.

They leave the table because if they actually had 40 BBs in front of them somebody might call their raise and OMG they might actually have to make a decision for once in their poker lives, and they obviously don't have the mental capacity for all that.

What it should be, and what I think FTP is going to do, is something like:

20-50 bb buyin tables labeled "short" or "cap"
40-100 bb buyin tables not labeled, ie normal tables
50-200 bb tables labeled "deep"

Deep tables should be 100bb min imo

Also the cap tables should be renamed to 'scared pussy tables'

If your hoping for major change from ftp, i doubt that is going to happen. They just want to create a balance. I like the idea of a 8 hour or something extreme recycle periods. I think people can buyin for whatever, but the going south and coming back is what people should have an issue with. That way short doubles and stays, which good % fish shorts do.

But your elminating a type of table completely. Why would you do that? That is a major change to change the most popular table at your site. If you want a new type of type of table im sure ftp will consider and people can choose if they want to play it.

I am not a shortstacker(unless playing mtt's then we are all!). I don't mind playing against them. Maybe at like 1/2 + they have become somewhat of an issue because they are winning (however players are allowed to win at poker) but generally at the low limits , especially 6max, SS's are often just free money. However the issue is based on your ability to make money more than anything.

It is lol because a player shouldn't have to see an empty seat and not be able to take because there are too many full stacks, too many SS's too many midstacks. I assume if your putting a limit on shorts, the limit would also apply to full stacks right? you can't just pick on one buyin. If you did, people who wouldn't normally SS would because it implies it is better to short since there are only a limited number of short seats.

No, you're not. Just change the regular tables to a 50bb-100bb buy in. Then, people who want to buy in short can play at cap tables, people who want to buy in medium can play the regular tables, people who want to buy in deep can play the deep tables. You won't even have a ratholing issue to deal with because of the nature of cap tables.

Every type of player - regular, fish, shortstacker, recreational players - everyone can choose what stack size they want to play and play with a table of like stack sizes. EVERYONE WOULD BE EQUAL. No inherent or claimed advantages, no raping of fishies being forced to buy in for more than they want, just everything being fair. WITHOUT creating a new type of table.

As you said, FTP is looking to create a balance. This solution is the most logical and fair to try to create it.

Yes there is. And there are a lot of SS's who are playing more than one street too. Have you not seen them? I have. Can't get away from them actually.

I look forward to FT implementing their big SOLUTION. Everyone celebrating how it's going to solve everything. And then everyone realizing that it didn't solve a thing and that it made the games somewhat worse. (similar to the much-anticipated 50BB tables on Stars).

how would increasing ratholing time ruin the game at all?

notfree - I don't think that would ruin the game. Obviously we don't know if that's what FT is planning on doing here. I was starting to think their big, secret plan might be something that would actually change things as opposed to changing the rat-holing time which I believe would do pretty much nothing. If FT wants to do that and thinks that is the way to "solve" ratholing then I will really be LOL'ing.

Their top-secret method of solving the problem is the most commonly tossed out suggestion that everyone already knows about. And it also happens to be one of the potentially least effective.

That, to me, is very similar to the 50BB thing. People were whining and complaining and begging for that for awhile. "Just give us the option!" Well, they gave you the option and it didn't really change anything. The whiners are still whining. The shortstacks are still shortstacking.

The 50BB tables on Stars are great--casual players join them in droves while they avoid Tilt's deep tables. I've moved more than half my roll off Tilt for that very reason. At Stars NL 100, I can usually select from around 75 50BB tables during my normal play times. At Tilt, the number is about 1/5 that (note that Stars does not have 5x Tilt's traffic). I would LOVE IT if Tilt just copied Stars. Why not? Stars keeps copying Tilt (e.g., the recent color coded notes update).

As for me, not celebrating yet. I have no idea what they plan. I just hope it's decent. If not, the last 40% of my roll is going to Stars as well.

This, I agree with. Increasing the ratholing time will just lead to more multi-accounting. Nothing will be fixed.

Do I really have to explain the obvious to you?

You say if we limit the amount of tables a shortstacker can play, then limit the amount a regular fullstacker or everything abose 20bb aswell?

When a shortstack doubles up, he leaves. How is the fish supposed to get a chance at winning his money back from him? Chase him? If a fish gets stacked by a non ratholer and rebuys, the player is still there.

Nice to hear that the shortstacks at your penny games are easy money.

They are a pest at 200NL+

It's unbelieveable how ignorant you are

What happens is a player WANTS to play in the 20-100BB situation? is that table now gone?

The majority of players online are below that level. I am glad you admit is they are simply a pest and a player type you don't like playing against.

I am not ignorant. I just don't agree with taking away the 20-100 tables which have proved so popular is a good option. You suggesting changing the most popular variation on the net for the sakes of lining the pockets of the nl200+ regs.

I have no problem with them introducing new tables etc which players like you might enjoy playing on more. If the players aren't playing the ones you want them too, so you deciede you know best and want to force them to play the ones you want.


I think that people who think FTP are going to have a silver bullet to fix it are going to be in for a rude shock because i don't belive ftp would consider doing something like that.

there is also no doubt in my mind that there is a TON of multi-accounting going on in russia and germany to abuse the first deposit bonus with rakeback through shortstacking. playing 20k hands of breakeven ss'ing at .5/1 nets about $730 in rb + bonus. there are new ones showing up daily, and many play for a week or so then are never seen again.

I think this would is the best proposed solution by far!!! Max out 4 tables for 20bb buyins. Everytime you rathole you lose one of your tables for 2hrs. That will stop the problem dead in its tracks. Win-win for regulars and fish. Lose-lose for the multi-tabling ratholing scum.

I would also like to see a switch to contributed rake calculation when computing rakeback. Shorties unfairly gain a much higher % they deserve. It will be very interesting to see how FT handles the problem

The amount of self serving BS in this thread i reaching epic levels, as if FTP cares about some random 2+2 tagfish's bottom line.

No worries, once the rathole time is up the short stack will be back and the fish have another shot at winning their money back. Your concern for the fish is touching.

So instead of learning to adjust you whine until they are removed, let me know how that works for you.

I just think it's inconsistent that the pro-SSers are railing against forcing people to buy in for a certain amount because when you buy in for the minimum, you're forcing everyone to play with your buy in size no matter what they chose to buy in with.

interesting thread. the ssers (whom i despise and have ranted about before) seem to be garnering some respect for their "strategy" (you exploit a flaw in the system), mainly due to imsa, i suppose.

as for the above poster (and all you ss apologists), you left out the rest of the quote, the part that really settles it for me. rake at 1-2 is 3ptbb, so that sser is winning 3.2ptbb from other players. that, coupled with the fact that b.o.tt.ing is much easier to accomplish with ss poker, means that something has to be done about them.

There is a god!!! Down with SS!

I just assumed that this is what FT was going to do. :shrug:

its laughable that ppl whine about ssres, yet refuse to play deep tables. if it was really soooo bad, then you would play deep. but none of you do, it seems...

why? b/c u realize its -EV for you b/c crappy players usually don't play deep.
so u realize you have no edge, and u play 100bb games instead.

then u ppl make some lame stuff up about wanting to play 3 streets. have u ever tried playing 3 streets in a 3bet pot? 3.5bb x 3bet = like 22 bb on flop. throw out a cbet of 14bb and wtf can you do on a 50bb pot turn?? if u reallly wanted to play "postflop" you alll would be playing deep tables. b/c that game has the most room for postflop play.

but just likethe SSers, you wanna play in a game that is comfortable for you. if you play deep 6max, there is usually noone at the table w/ less than 100bb. all u gotta do is join the table, its not that hard.

I really hope they don't delete the 20bb-100bb tables. I hope they add the 50bb-100bb or w/e just so that i could see what a failure those tables will be.

Wrong yet again. I've told you this at least six times in the various FTP answers threads. I only play the deep tables--at least 300K hands this year. Why? Because the regular tables are completely infected with SS'ers. However, there aren't enough deep tables at Tilt for me, so I "whine" in hopes of improving the regular tables. Casual players hate the deep tables, but they are quite happy with 50-100BB on Stars. That's what I want to see on Tilt.

If Tilt doesn't take some sort of action, I'll move the rest of my roll to Stars--more than half is already gone. The reasons I haven't migrated completely already are 1) I prefer Ironman + Rakeback to Stars' rewards program, 2) I prefer Tilt's software, and 3) I prefer Tilt's tournaments. Before giving up, I'm trying to improve the site I like best.

this is very true

and I'm still stunned that winning poker players cannot see how a shortstack protects fish