as much as regs hate shorstackers fish hate them even more. Shortstackers ruin the games for both regs and fish.

+1

Chop their 3 inch penises off as well

This "balance" argument that some are making is hilarious/stupid.

I'm sorry while many of your points have been kinda biased but at least grounded in some logic or you attempt to explain your reasoning. I can guarantee you this statement is so ridiculously false it isn't funny, and is the most damning proof that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

This thread has been derailed anyway, it isn't even in my best interest to take this discussion any further. Everyone is happy to just revel in their ignorance and flame away. I won't waste my time any longer.

Even though I don't play there, it will be interesting to see what does happen at FTP, though I can't help but suspect it won't leave the anti-shortstackers in this thread satisfied in the long run.

I really hope they do this, so that PS will eventually do it as well.

PokerStars will have 0 SNEs from cashgames then.

Numbers may go down some, but this is far, far from true.

bs

If FT ban shortstacks the stars is going to become even bigger hell then it already is. basically it forces deepstack to play shortstack strategy at tables with 70% shortstackers....

Do you realize how big an impact that change from dealt to the fair weighted contributed rake method would be for alle the 12/9* stats playing SNE chasers?

*Not sure if those numbers are correct for the average SNE grinder, I'm just assuming

You just described how FTP currently is

ye its close betweent the two. but if one solve the problem then the other will get the shortstackers and that would be really really bad.

This thread proves very clearly that this is 100% wrong. The vast majority of players in this thread don't understand this issue at all. They THINK they do but the common ideas on this issue are generally incorrect.

Among those include thoughts on shortstackers all being tight players, shortstackers all being generally break-even at poker, it being easy to be a winning shortstacker because of the supposed inherent advantage.

Do you guys not even go to PTR? All it takes is a glance of just a few of the SS regulars to see that most of them are NOT break-even. If it were so easy to be a winning player as a SS'er then more players would actually be showing a profit. This stuff is easily researchable. So it just amazes me that people keep spewing this same crap over and over when the evidence clearly shows it's just not that way.

Some of you players are helping the SS'ers gain their advantage in multi-way pots by playing them incorrectly in the first place. Just think about some of that for a minute or two. You love to whine about their supposed inherent advantage and aren't even aware of what you are doing wrong against them.

No it doesn't. I don't doubt that many players THINK it does though.

The hate towards shortstackers is mostly coming from ABC-tagfish who cant win @ deep tables.

And therefor demand from the sites that they force fish to play deep tables.

Because apparantly Tagfish have somehow the right to win mucho monies from their living rooms.

All deep tables is fine with me, but dont say its for the love of the game, please..

lol

You're either with us or you're a terrorist

you have a PPA card?

But if we don't keep the food chain in place and remove the SS, which is the natural predator of LAGs, then the LAG population will grow beyond control, destroying the nit and TAG populations and causing the food chain to collapse.

That's why we're culling the LAGs annually, duh.

lags are going to bust them selves !

Pretty much agree. Not entirely sure about "mostly coming from" but suspect that is likely correct.

The tight and tag-fish players who aren't winning as much as they used to (or as much as they did previously) are blaming the shortstackers and the supposed inherent advantage while also thinking that their tighter-deepstack way is better and somehow entitles them to win.

There are many deepstack, tighter players who do NOT really play that creatively and I just don't see where such players get off criticizing the supposed simplicity of the shortstackers game. This is especially strange considering the wide variety of strategies employed by so many of the different shortstacks I have seen. Compare that with some of the uncreative play of the weaker, deep-stack players (the types who aren't winning and perhaps are complaining the most) and I find it all very interesting.

Kind of like wanting to blame the shortstacks for the reason the games suck and not pointing the fingers at themselves to just go out and take their money (as well as the money of the other deeper-stack players).

Saying the shortstacks are not-defeatable is just a big LOL.

If it was for the love of the game people wouldn't need to play the game for money. It's hard for me to worry about protecting the "beauty" of something that there is no way that I or 99% of this thread would ever regularly do for free.

Just sticky this for any and all future "die, shortstacker, die" threads.

Bob,
Shortstacks do have an inherent advantage. Of course a lot of them are beatable because they suck, but a good shortstacker at a table with 5 perfect 100 bb stacks will win in the long run.

I don't think that that's an argument to ban shortstackers, but it does partially explain why people who like to play with deeper stacks dislike them, and of course the sites should consider the fact that many deeper stacked players don't like playing with shortstackers when they set their buy-in and ratholing policies.

There's also a significant risk of writing a bot. I'm pretty sure I could've written a profitable short-stacking bot 5 years ago, before I was a winning poker player. I now beat 5/10 for a good clip, and I doubt I could write a bot that could beat NL100 with a full stack. I'd like to think that Stars/FTP have security measures in place that prevent short stack bots, but I definitely think this is a legitimate concern.

Also, the way that you countered the "shortstacks make the game less interesting" argument is totally ridiculous. A shortstack in the game instead of a full stack obviously means less streets get played per hand on average, which means less decisions per hand, which to many people makes the game less interesting. Sure, playing with tight players does the same thing, but not to the same extent--and the existence of tight players isn't a result of an easily changeable part of the game's structure.

However, I do agree with you that there are many shortstackers who are beatable even with a deeper stack because they don't play very well--even professional shortstackers. And I definitely agree that a lot of the shortstack haters are overreacting--msotly because they're confusing the general decline in winrates due to constantly increasing skill levels with the small decrease in winrate that shortstacks cause for them. But there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about shortstackers.

Noah - Yes, I realize that the SS is able to shove and get an advantage sometimes on a table of all deep-stack players if all players are playing "perfectly" (whatever the hell that means). However, this aspect of it is HUGELY exaggerated by the whiner types in threads like this.

And many of the people who think they see examples of this happening actually are not. They fold to the over-shove when they should have called, don't even realize they made a mistake, and then whine about how unfair it is that the SS'ers are taking advantage of them that way.

In other words, most people can't even correctly identify the times it's really happening vs. the times when they screwed up the play themselves.

Regardless, I think the part that annoys me the most is the perception of how easy it is to win playing that way. Ummm, you just magically know their calling and shoving ranges vs. every 20/10 and 15/12 and whatever other VP/PFR ratio at the table?

And it's right there in front of everyone to verify whether it really IS that easy to win. Go to PTR. Look up the SS'ers numbers. Most of them are losing. No...they're not break-even. Most of them do not win.

Anyway, the deepstack nits might be playing less REAL poker than some of the more creative shortstackers out there. That's debatable of course. But some of the tighter and less creative deepstack players are NOT types who I view as playing more of a "real" game. And it's types like that who make me want ante's on all the NL games because I think they would be punished more for their reluctance to get in there and actually play a few hands. But I'm not demanding that or anything. The tightwad, deepstack players can play how they like too...but if they get on their high-horse and claim to be playing more of a "man's game" or something I'm going to call them out on it.

(this is not to say that all deep-stack players are tightwad nits...obviously not the case....just as obvious that not all shortstacks are ultra-tight either no matter how much some want to claim otherwise).