+1 Well said

The labels ARE a cluster****, but I agree, labels like that create new problems that PStars obviously is trying to avoid. No matter how much some of us might prefer Shallow Normal Deep, I doubt its going to happen.

Seriously..... many here sound like complete whiners.

It seems like only direct deposit into their bank accounts would make them happy.

I think Stars should change their Timebank to 3 hours a day so all the full stack regs can play 40 more tables and make the single tabling fish wait an average of 14 minutes to see the flop, turn and river.

Have you looked at the lobby? LOL at arguing recreational players would feel comfortable joining any table with how much of a mess all the numbers make it look.

lmao

Dude,

I agree with your most recent post (the one before the quoted one that others have agreed with beofore me), but here you're taking it a bit too far. Contrary to your apparent belief not all fullstack/deepstack regs are masstabling HUDbots.

I guess you're a shortstacker, and whatever man, if that's what you like, be my guest. But frankly, being a shortstacker you don't have much experience playing turns, much less rivers, MUCH LESS with SPRs that don't exist for your stack even preflop (exaggerated to emphasize ldo).

It sounds like it won't, but just to make sure...

These changes won't affect games in the Other Tab like 5 Card Draw and Lowball will they?

If you are confident that the 20bb push/shove rathole style of play is bad for poker. Then you should have no concern that the 20-50bb games will be most popular.

I am confident that no one likes playing against someone who simply shoves pre and leaves if he/she wins. Many many casual fish will experience the same frustration and seek out the tables not allowing a 20bb buy in.

It's just that simple. Stop complaining.

I, of course, emailed PokerStars about these changes. The response I got made it clear that they considered surveys as hearing back from the average player. Nevermind what people actually did when they had to vote with their feet and wallets. As an earlier poster noted, 20-100 games were 85% of the games compared to 50BB min games being 15%. We had an experiment the last two years. Guess what? The 50BB min game got trounced. It was pummeled. The 20-100 game proved way more popular. And, it wasn't only due to shortstacks. Shortstackers were less than half of the players in 20-100 games. If you are being really generous and saying shortstacks made up 50% of the 20-100 players, then you had 42.5% of players shortstacking 20-100, 42.5% of players deep at 20-100, and 15% of players at 50BB min games. The experiment had been done. Yet, the vocal minority gets to change the playing habits of a much larger group simply because they made lots of loud noises in the last 2 years. What a joke!
Bottom line: 20-100 games trounced 50-100 games in popularity. It didn't matter. The more popular structure was taken away to benefit the loud mouth pros.

LOL deep ante tables fast only? are u kidding me how does that make any sense at all
should be normal only that was a horrible decision
i just stars just wants regs to feel rushed in decisions for giant spots and spew money = more rake

Everybody always talks about how much rake masstabling shortstackers generate and that stars should cater to these good customers. Guess what? Fullstacked regs generate a lot of rake aswell (in fact they CONTRIBUTE more $/hand than a shorty).

We have a voice too and should be catered to.

i dont get why stars would do 35-100bb for euro tables but make usd tables different??
20-35bb
35-100bb would have been a fine solution
wtf is this 20-50 nonsense
and not wanting to label the tables
and the screw up on the 250bb tables is just tilting me off my ass

did you stop and try the understand the post before monkey typing a response?

there were more players deep at 20-100 games in absolute number than at 50-100 games.
and this $/hand comparison is disingenuous. Games with more shortstackers got more hands per hour in. The money per hour was equal.

MT2R, you will be the one and only person to send an email with that point of view, regardless of how many people you think shared your opinion....

funny that 20-100 games had more players and more deep stacks in them than 50-100 games

seems like most of you overlook the completely obvious in trying to cast me as a minority

I honestly don't think that that can possibly the reason. I mean once the pot reaches $60, where all the REALLY tough decisions start when there's $220 behind (at 100NL, even more at higher stakes obv), the rake is capped anyways, so stars gains nothing by people spewing beyond a $60 pot.

The only rake related reason might be to have players play another $60 pot as soon as possible.

I don't know. I'm still confused and eagerly await Steve's elaboration on the "close" decision making process reagarding these tables.

Honestly, it's stupefying how arrogant some of you guys are. Do you think that guys who don't know how to play poker profitably are stupid? A lot of them have have better jobs and more money than a lot of poker players.

Don't judge them if you don't know them personally.

once again, the one and only person out of the hundreds of thousands of accounts created on pokerstars

I was joking dude and no I don't shortstack btw.

well said - when they introduced euro tables with 35-100, and considering that is what full tilt did (which has gone over very well) I figured that was the future fix coming, but no they decided to make things super complicated with some of the worst decision I could imagine.

this is the biggest problem with poker players
a large portion of them think anyone that isn't a winner at poker is a ****** on the IQ scale

hell, this is the only reason these game changes are taking place at all. The whole background is that the normal player was too stupid in choosing 20-100 games over 50-100 games, so the pro player has to make that choice for the average guy.

Kinda tough to understand your posts really. You present "facts" (more deep players played the 20-100 game than short players), without showing any data about that (which you can't have unless you're a PS employee).

Apart from that all I said is that my rake money, and the rake money of other fullstacks have voices too.

real preferences are revealed with real economic decisions

Dude, wtf, how could the 20-100 games have more deeps stacks at a table than the game that had a minimum of 50bb buyin where almost everyone buyins in full? This statement is completely false.