nope...there are 20bb min tables. They are not popular.

1. Are all the deep stack tables going to have antes? What about medium or short stack tables with antes? What's the thought process on making antes only on deep stack tables?

2. For the medium stack tables, why just 40bb minimum, why not 50bb minimum like the current 50bb tables that people currently seem to be satisfied with?

3. How does the "default" buyin play a part at the tables? Is it just the buyin automatically placed in the box for "other amount"?

+1 to those saying that filling the nl lobby with a bunch of numbers about BBs is probably not a great idea, names should be:

shallow/short
normal/medium
deep

seriously stars, how ****ing stupid can you be... why do you think overlapping buyins is good?

20-35
35-100
100-250

if people want to play with x amount of bbs, they should play with people that also want to play with that amount. I have no idea why it took you brilliant minds 6 months to come up with such a terrible system, its beyond pathetic. If you understood poker at all you would realize that bb difference in stacks skews games much more when stacks are shallower (i.e. difference between 20-50 stacks is huge compared to 100-200)

I highly doubt this is going to be much better than 20-100 and 50-100 for the exact same reasons why that system failed. I don't get how anyone thinks that this is much of a positive change, but w/e applaud stars for being total morons.

Countown to each shortstacker starting 100 tables of 20-50bb and fullstackers countering so there being a million people trying to start as many of their kind of table as they want? How are they ordered in the lobby? If 20-50bb is on top that still make fish more likely to play those tables. FTP's way was soooooooo much better but obviously this is better than the current way.

As someone who has played a lot at the low stakes (NL25-NL100) tables over the past few years, I don't think any change was necessary at these levels because all the shortstackers were terrible. Even the ones that thought they knew what they were doing were pretty easily exploitable.

I can understand the need for change at mid stakes game, but maybe these games should have been left alone?

I kind of agree with the post above about 100BB games at least slowing down in the games I play. One of the things I would always look for at these tables is players with 30-60BB stacks. I guess I'm going to be playing a lot more short stacked than 100BB's now.

Preferred- 100-200 BB buy in

Grade: D
Not only did they keep the shortstackers in business w/ these ******ed 20-50 tables they didnt really make the other tables significantly better.

One thing I hate for sure is that there will not be enough ante tables running and they LOWERED the min buy in at 100 BB max tables to 40BB now instead of dealing with ****head half stackers I have to deal with 40%ers. FFS stars, usually you do incredible work but this is a garbage effort to please the masses without addressing the real problem.

awesome changes .....I Love Stars

way to F up the labeling. Clog up the lobby even more.

You have no default table speed.
You have no default table buyin.

FTP did it right, why can't you.

A lot of fish have gravitated twords the 20 bb/40bb games on full tilt.
I could guarantee you half the fish will be at the 20/50bb tables if not more then 50%
.

Good job guys!

it's gonna be labeled:

20-50bb
40-100bb
100-250bb

in the lobby. There won't be "names."

You should start a thread in small/midstakes FR and put the word out to everyone to be online Tues/Wedn and spam the lobby with as many non-20bb tables as possible.

unless these are tabs this would be a terrible and very confusing system imo

Relax.

For now, the overlap gives people in the 40-50 BB range some choice during a fairly dramatic change. Stars can always tweak it later if necessary.

I am really looking forward to the deep ante games!

Seems to be an obvious early stage issue.

However, how many of those would want to play HU/3h? That's still the minority. What are they gonna do, start tables then sit out? Fish then opens table, goes uhh no.

I sort of like the changes. I just hope there are enough deep tables running.

Its already obvious that the whinging will continue unless the short tables fail.

I'm guessing they'll be very profitable while people learn htf to play deep

let me clairfy:

the 20-50 bb games skew a lot of action from players who want to play 50bb stacks to players who want to play 20bb stacks. its a completely different game, one is totally devoid of any post flop play while the other is actually allows people to play flop/turn/river spots.

20bb poker is basically shove/fold game over opens, therefore people that want to play this style should have to play with other people who play this style. The fact that short stacking infringes on other peoples ability to play poker to their liking as compared to the difference between 100-200 bb stacks.

I think its really easy to figure out why people complain about short stackers w/ 20bbs but never complain about a 75bb stack in a deep game.

thats what i mean by overlapping buyins. its not based on the total difference in bbs, but the contradiction of style played by 20bb stacks and 35+ bb stacks that kill games.

As long as regs don't bumhunt the 20BB-50BB tables, I think these changes will work out just fine.

+1 for labeling/filtering tables

Simply putting the word "shallow" by the 20-50bb tables will have less casual fish navigating there.

.

changes are terrible imo, 20-50bb is way too wide

Steve I hope there's an option for ante and non-ante games for deep tables.

I have felt like **** today, cause i´m stucked until i read this.

well done PS.