rizeagainst: can i ask why all of you are shortstacking
travis1124: dis all i hav
rizeagainst: i dont believe you, i think you have more money but you dont understand how to play with it
rizeagainst: what about the rest of you
Denim0: i love SSS
rizeagainst: why
Denim0: it's easier than BSS
Denim0: much easier

Anyway, The professor knows about these things. And the Professor he says its game over for the SS'ers.

I love the Professor.

When is his class?

It's very possible that both sides will be pissed off.

I take my chances

I think this is the most likely outcome. It will probably be a change that will be significant enough to cut into the SSers winrate (or income or whatever you prefer to call their winnings/losses plus RB), thus pissing them off. But not significant enough to get them to stop shortstacking entirely, so the full stackers will be pissed.

On the plus side, we have this thread. It should be stickied and all die shortstackers die threads moved into it.

long story short. all shortstackers should be banned and get a huge diarrea for 2 weeks minimum until their eyes go like this -->

I don't even care about eliminating them altogether. This is only an issue because there are so damn many. If you can cut into their winrate, a bunch will just go and do something else with their lives. The tables will be playable, at least.

im starting to have a new hatred for these people.

Oh yes please!

Baby!

People in this thread should be careful what they wish for.

If you seriously think that it's a good idea for the sites to closely examine how they should discourage players who 'ruin game quality' you need your head examining.

Poker site economics is pretty simple. The ideal player from their point of view is a bit like a shill. Plays lots of tables to keep games going; breaks even against the rest of the players, slowly loses it all to the site in rake.

Winning players are bad for sites. They take money out of that site's economy that otherwise would eventually flow to that site in rake.

The site may have even to start advertising more to replace the losing players that all sites depend upon (ultimately) for their income.

The site doesn't really like or want winning players. They are all parasites so far as the site is concerned because they make the site split the profits with them. That is why if you are a skin on the ipoker network you get ejected from the network if your players make a net monthly profit.

And that's why,with the reduction in competition that came with the UIGEA, US sites basically suck RB wise. Stars has a FPP system that absolutely sucks for SSNL cash grinders, FT gives you all of 27% RB (oh woot), whereas, over in Europe where no duopoly exists to squeeze players, RB of 60% or so even for a small volume casual SSNL player is a real possibility.

So far as the sites are concerned the higher your aggregate cash winings, the worse you are for them and the more they want to encourage you to leave.

Most shorties at the stakes that matter to the sites (SSNL and maybe $400) have tiny win rates (if they win at all). They are pretty close to the ideal shills in many cases. The real villains in the sites' eyes are the biggest winners - who are very likely to be some of the same 2+2 MT HUDding regs who are in this thread crying out for the banning of shorties (although I appreciate some of you will be more like FGators! )

Let's say FT does something that actually removes shorties from the pool. Beware of unintended consequences. How long before they (perhaps having had a friendly chat with Stars first) start deciding that good full stack MTers are they next ones to target to increase their profit?

As I said, I'm only a small volume player and I play on Euro sites anyway, so this is unlkely to make much difference to me, but I very much doubt that this is going to play out in a way that is going to make very many posters in this thread happy.

It's very, very easy to make me happy. All Tilt has to do is offer 50-100BB tables--ie, copy Stars. Those tables are super-popular there (usually 75+ at NL 100 during my play hours), enabling even a multitabler to table select like crazy while avoiding shortstacks. Casual players love them, regs love them, everyone but the shortstacks loves them.

Simple.

As long as there is any disparity in players' skill levels, removing the top winners will just raise the winrates or lower the lossrates of everybody worse than the top winners were, creating new top winners.

@excession

Just to make this clear: Winning players (bigstacks) are not parasites. They put in the work to study the game and don't mass table for rakeback. They EARN the money and move up in limits. They are every poker players motivation, who keep the games alive. They also help to evolve poker theory and keeping up the fact, that poker is a game of skill.

You realize it was suggestions from regs in this forum years ago who asked for the deep tables to max out at 200bb instead of 100bb? They probably thought it would make the game more "fun" and "fish will like it". how did that go?

This issue will be the same. FT will do whatever to stop SSers and in a few months or a year everyone will come here complaining again because they cant win in the current games and need a excuse.

Even if you're right, that doesn't make the anti-SSers wrong on this issue.

Games shouldn't have any exploits* possible, even if most people trying to abuse it do so poorly.

*Playing the game well is not an exploit, so don't bother trying to draw parallels between shortstacking and check-raising or whatever.

1) I wasn't one of the folks who suggested that.
2) I don't care. The 50-100 tables at Stars work great. There's no reason they won't work at Tilt. You, a shortstacker, have every reason to PRETEND they won't since fewer 20-100 tables running will hurt your win rate.

Are the 50BB min tables on starsa lot tougher than the regualr tables? Or basically the same?

Just worked thru some numbers:

If you win (after rake) at 3PTBB/100 at $100 6m NL - standard decent MT reg rates - you are basically taking 7PTBB/100 from the fish (as you have to first pay 4PTBB/100 rake to get to your 3PTBB/100 net rate).

After adding back your RB (assuming 25% or whatever) you paying 3PTBB to the site.

The site is making 3PTBB/100 from you and 4PTBB/100 from the fish.
You are taking 7PTBB/100 from the fish.

Let's assume a typical fish leaves the site after losing $1000 and that he just keeps playing on your tables (for ease of calculation we'll assume everyone else is just a breakeven player because we want to look at how you compare to a decent shorty from the site's point of view).

When the fish goes the you will have taken 77% of his money ($770) and the site will have taken just 23% of it ($230). You pay the site of equivalent of $270 in rake but even after that the net position for the site will be that you have taken 50% of the money available from that fish ($500). Another way of looking at it from the site's viewpoint is that you have busted out the fish twice as fast as he would have been busted had you not been around. If you have better than a 3PTBB/100 winrate or better than 25% RB then the position is even worse for the site.

Let's compare the baddy in this thread..the decent shorty..BOO! HISS! etc
These guys would rarely make more than 0.5PTBB/100 at $100 6m NL (they have a hard time ourunning the 4PTBB/100 rake).
So they are taking 4.5PTBB/100 from the fish and paying more or less the same 3PTBB (net of RB) rake to the site as the MT reg (certainly on contributed rake sites).

In this scenario the site is taking $470 by way of rake from the fish, the shorty is taking $530 but is paying his own rake of $270 back. Meaning the site is taking 74% of the money available.

So basically in cash terms and assuming these are typical win and rake rates decent MT regs are about twice as bad for site revenues as decent shorties...so banning shorties needs to bring in a LOT more fish to make the switch worthwhile for the site.

Easier, in my opinion, since you never have pushbot shortstackers screwing up your play against the other deep stacks.

A couple points for you to consider:

1) I'm not asking for a ban on shorties, and neither are most folks in this thread. I'd just like to see Tilt offer 50-100BB tables as the standard in addition to the deep, cap, and 20-100 tables it offers now

2) The decent MT regs you talk about pay a lot of rake. Some have already moved completely to Stars because of the 50-100 tables. Others, like myself, have moved partially while we wait for Tilt's response to the issue. Stars clearly thinks they are worth catering to, and therefore profitable for the site. They will profit Tilt as well.

LOL from the site's point of view they are parasites and worse ones in terms of taking money off the site than shorties ever are.

I appreciate from a player's view they aren't.

I fully admit short stacking is easier than playing full stacked, more reliant on RB for profit and leads to ratholing that may irritate other players. It is less skillful than deep stacked play.

But NLHE is less skillful than PLO or HORSE, MTT's require less skill than deep stacked cash games and SnG's are basically a solved joke skill wise.
HUD's also make the game easier, so does bumhunting (or good table selection to use a neutral term)
Should we ban all those too?

1) I don't play on FT. I play on iPoker where there are 50-100BB tables that spawn on demand. The demand for them seems to be about 1 in 8 tables or so btw. I have no issue at all with these being offered on any site and had assumed that FT did this. If they don't they should and I have some more sympathy for full stackers if they don't have an easy way to avoid shorties if they want as they can on other sites.

2) It doesn't matter how much rake you pay. The maths are the same. Unless banning winning shorties rather than full stack winning regs produces an extra fish for the site for every shorty banned, the sites would be better off banning the full stack winning regs instead!

Tilt offers 50-200 BB tables as its only way to avoid shorties. However, casual players/fish avoid those tables like the plague since they don't like to play deep. Casual players/fish seem to like 50-100BB tables just fine, and as a result Stars has 3 to 5 times more 50-100BB tables running at all hours of the day than Tilt has deep tables (note that Stars does not have 3x to 5x Tilt's traffic).

It's by no means zero sum for the site. Knock off the top winning regs and even if everyone else's results improve a bit to compensate, unless those players are outrunning the rake the site gets all their $$$ eventually. Lowering the loss rates is fine -it's what the site wants - as then the fish will bleed comparatively more to rake than to being fished..