why so many of the "old" tables are 50bb min still baffles my mind, maybe even more than half of them still are, and they're all nitfests too, most below 13% pls/flop. I guess this is people coming off of their session from last night maybe outside the US who don't know the change has been made yet. Everyone who normally plays 50bb+ should be moving over to 40bb+ immediately.

Um, they did double the min buy in, BUT not everyone has a bankroll for that - so they left tables for players buying in shorter.

he can always move down



anyway

+11111111

Some people here don't seem to be understanding fundamental concepts in reality and it's a little frightening.

First thing you have to understand is that these changes were made to suit PokerStars. That's how businesses work. They want to make their customers happy within a framework that makes them money.

That's why shorty tables are not going away until shortstacking isn't popular.

That's also why the differences aren't labelled. Words have connotations and numbers don't. That's why whatsisraise's incessant arguments are so nonsensical. When one set of tables is labeled deep and one set of tables is not labeled then the unlabeled tables become standard and more people will play them just because they are standard. If you label something as deep, standard, and short the short tables will be stigmatized as lesser and the deep tables will be stigmatized as fancy pants. Stars doesn't want to stigmatize their players so they present these as three equally viable options even though we all know shortstacking douchetards should die in very painful ways.

The argument that all the fish are going to the short tables is similarly nonsense. Obviously some are. Some are going to prefer to play each buy in. Some are going to take whatever is open. Many are just going to play the middle one because when faced with a three part decision a lot of people will always take the middle one.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...11/index3.html

For the PLO community's outlook

And another thing. I obviously don't know the details of the Stars software but I can virtually guarantee that a lobby change requires dramatically more design, coding, and testing than updating the tables. They added the filter which allows you to isolate the tables you want. Something like a tab system of which I would approve will probably be coming relatively soon.

this lobby is a giant cluster****. I didn't want to be negative but the implementation is awful. Too many choices and the choices are hidden for players that don't click on the Hold'em Ring Game Filter.


I also think it should be 20-40 and 35-100, I tried to smile and nod, but it's a big deal.

That's a nice argument in theory, but people are starting to examine the empirical evidence, albeit with a small size sample since the new tables are just starting. What I see at my limits are very few fish playing at 40-100 or 100-250, with huge waitlists at those tables. 20-50bb are littered with fish--so at least for the moment, at my stakes, the argument is not nonsense.

I'm aware. I was offering a simple solution. The current one looks like a mess IMO.

Maybe people who haven't started tables in the past should start doing it now that the landscape has changed. That might fix the waitlist issue outright. You KNOW the SS'ers will be starting tables left and right to get around the rathole time limits so we want the fish to have just as many tables to choose from in the 40bb+ tables as in the short tables. I might make it a point to always start one table when I start playing from now on, if everyone did that, might fix the waitlist problem.

Of course this might just be a player pool situation where there are still tons of "old" tables that no one sees very easily so people are having a hard time joining the new table types because of the temporary population split (old/new table types).

It beggars belief how these people can complain about games that they don't even intend to play in. Like you say they don't want people to have the right to choose what game they play and not have the complainers game of choice forced upon them. It's pretty ridiculous what they're asking but they don't seem to realise that at all.

Can't believe so many people are concentrating on the min buyin changes since they seem to be fairly meaningless differences and ignoring the new max 250bb buy in levels. That's got to be the biggest change with far wider implications. I'm not sure if it's a good thing long term for NLHE but for PLO it's a boom.

The complaints relate to a bigger picture; namely, the decision of what site to play on. If the overall game package is better at a competing site, then people will probably leave. Limiting others' right to choose doesn't even factor into it.

PLO isn't NL. There was nothing wrong with old system in PLO. Wish Stars would have taken a look what happened on FullTilt when they did there changes.

Extremely disappointed in the changes, its almost like they are catering to shortstackers for PLO.

Sigh I really wish they were just left alone. A big portion of the shortstackers are pure garbage and so easy to exploit. When this happened at tilt the short tables became fish infested and the regular ones regfests. So far all I see is the same thing happening at stars.

I think some people will consider moving up a level and becoming SSers. I think this "fix" may create more SSers in the long run.

Yeah 20-40bb or 40-100bb, daunting, DAUNTING! I doubt a fish will ever find his way to a seat again, what with the impossible to figure out labeling.

The changes are fair because they market both types of game equally to the casual player. Thats the problem for most of the people complaining, they want pokerstars to create a bias for the 40bb+ games. If people think they can make more money at another site then for sure they should go, but angrily lobbying for pokerstars to make their game of choice the 'default' is selfish and silly.

I'm looking at 20-50 games and they are being populated by a TON of people buying in for 40-50bb. This range is totally inappropriate. This needs to be trimmed to 40bb or fewer to be a truly shallow or short game.

Have you ever heard of the word "Compromise"? PS did not want to kill off a segment of players to appease another segment. They got rid of 20bb-100bb tables. Let the changes play out already. Everybody lost a little and gained a little in this change. Nobody got screwed here. SMDH

Untrue, the games at Tilt are the best ever seen in the history of poker with fish taking up four to five seats at every table. This is what I gathered from following these threads over the past few weeks.

Pretty sure Stars could offer free hookers+blow, and someone would complain about it.

(100-250 bb,ante) is the worst for that

ante is plenty enough

wrong again. They chopped off 50bbs for you. Now you want to cry about 10 more? Stop being selfish and let the changes play out.

You should have asked for 20bb poker to be eliminated than ask for special 20bb tables. You made your bed so lie in it.