My Solution to PokerStars Shortstacking Situation (With Poll) - Internet Poker

Two Plus Two Forums Online Poker Sites & Marketplaces Online Poker Sites Discussion of Poker Sites

My Solution to PokerStars Shortstacking Situation (With Poll)

View Poll Results: Would you approve this solution?

(I play mostly shortstack) Yes.

23 7.42%

(I play mostly shortstack) No.

20 6.45%

(I play mostly fullstack) Yes.

177 57.10%

(I play mostly fullstack) No.

73 23.55%

Undecided.

17 5.48%

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 1 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6

Page 1 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6

03-09-2010 , 02:48 PM

1p0kerboy

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 11,797

The games need to be split. I think there's a way to do it so that it's good for most players.

I propose the buy-ins to be adjusted as follows:

20-40bb buy-in for type A tables.
40-100bb buy-in for type B tables.

I think the recreational players will find their way to both table types.

Furthermore, I think the type A tables should have a lower rake. Because in terms of standard deviation and possible expectation it will run similar to a limit game, I think we should apply the limit rake schedule to these tables. That will help to sustain these new games.

Quote

03-09-2010 , 02:52 PM

pianospike

adept

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,081

What is the limit rake structure?

Quote

03-09-2010 , 02:53 PM

Matt Wolfe

old hand

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 1,248

almost like full tilts shallow stacks?

Quote

03-09-2010 , 02:55 PM

*Split*

See my coaching listing

Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 9,261

at first glance i support that

Quote

03-09-2010 , 02:56 PM

1p0kerboy

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 11,797

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/rake/

See the fixed limit section.

Quote

03-09-2010 , 03:02 PM

Mardagg

centurion

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 152

I like the idea of a poll here.
20-40,40-100 would be fine.
Deep tables,like 80-200, would probably be nice,but for a start 20-40,40-100 is sufficient.I understand that something can be done to make the short tables more juicy for shortstackers so that most will stay on stars.
Changing the rake structure could be an idea here,indeed.

Quote

03-09-2010 , 03:12 PM

random hater

banned

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,866

at micros rake is worse at limit than no limit up to 1/2 level

Quote

03-09-2010 , 03:27 PM

AirmanSpecial

old hand

Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,597

I think it's a good idea. Similar to how turbo and super turbo SNGs have lower rake because there's less gameplay and lower winrates.

I'm not sure that Stars would want to do that though. If most people don't pay attention to the rake, the incentive to play short tables might be wasted and the money could be better used somewhere else. Also, what other option do they have, anyway?

Also, I think 20bb cap would be a million times better than 20-40bb. Table selecting is enough of a hassle as a full stacker, I'd hate to have to switch tables every time I won a pot, too. But it doesn't make any difference to me either way, really.

Voted Yes.

Quote

03-09-2010 , 03:29 PM

curtains

banned

Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 17,681

How will the tables be labeled?

Quote

03-09-2010 , 03:31 PM

#10

random hater

banned

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,866

Quote:

Originally Posted by AirmanSpecial

Also, I think 20bb cap would be a million times better than 20-40bb. Table selecting is enough of a hassle as a full stacker, I'd hate to have to switch tables every time I won a pot, too. But it doesn't make any difference to me either way, really.

Voted Yes.

yeah i always agreed with this

curtains would you play 20cap or do you think it's worthless?

Quote

03-09-2010 , 03:32 PM

#11

1p0kerboy

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 11,797

I think tables should be labeled without using 'normal' or 'regular', which is why I designated them 'type A' and 'type B' in the OP.

But that's subject to a different debate really.

Quote

03-09-2010 , 03:34 PM

#12

random hater

banned

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,866

40 max/40min doesn't sway people either way methinks

Quote

03-09-2010 , 03:38 PM

#13

1p0kerboy

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 11,797

Quote:

Originally Posted by AirmanSpecial

If most people don't pay attention to the rake, the incentive to play short tables might be wasted and the money could be better used somewhere else.

The smaller rake is not there to offer incentive to play those games.

It's smaller to sustain those games because they are going to be much harder to beat.

Quote

03-09-2010 , 03:46 PM

#14

Sect7G

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,234

I think that this proposal is the best that I've heard and the rake should be adjusted due to the lower winrates.

Quote

03-09-2010 , 03:50 PM

#15

Zenzor

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,420

I think this is a bad idea. The distribution of fish won't change, and the majority of baddies will still sit at normal tables... which will now be 40bb cap? This sounds more beneficial to shortstacks than regulars.

Quote

03-09-2010 , 04:10 PM

#16

Roy

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 7,447

I'm a big fan of this.

Quote

03-09-2010 , 04:12 PM

#17

pianospike

adept

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,081

The more I think about this the more I think it makes a lot of sense and the more I like it.

Quote

03-09-2010 , 04:16 PM

#18

jmillerdls

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 3,485

I think there are better solutions, but I don't hate it.

How they label the tables is important...similar to FT would be acceptable.

Quote

03-09-2010 , 04:19 PM

#19

TimStone

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 8,375

I support that solution!

Seems very very good to me...

Quote

03-09-2010 , 04:20 PM

#20

afishthattalks

stranger

Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 14

it´s not fair to eliminate SS in the middle of the year, they should wait until next year.

or they can keep SS in fast tables (for those that are trying SN or SNE) and eliminate in normal tables. So it will traffic/fishes enough for both

Quote

03-09-2010 , 04:21 PM

#21

TimStone

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 8,375

Quote:

Originally Posted by afishthattalks

it´s not fair to eliminate SS in the middle of the year, they should wait until next year.

[ ] understands the term "middle of the year"

[x] solid 1st post

Quote

03-09-2010 , 04:25 PM

#22

jmillerdls

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 3,485

Quote:

Originally Posted by afishthattalks

uhh...April is not the middle of the year. Also, this doesn't eliminate SS...you see that, right?

Quote

03-09-2010 , 05:09 PM

#23

Niediam

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,069

I'm not sure if I personally like this nor am I sure that it will be successful (that meaning that both games thrive) but I think it's by far the best idea that I have seen so far.

Quote

03-09-2010 , 05:13 PM

#24

afishthattalks

stranger

Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 14

c'mon, it´s not exactly middle of the year of course, but i guess you understand what i mean.

and yes, they do eliminate as it will not be enough traffic for those that are trying a high VIP level. Check how many tables are in FTP...