NOPE

PokerStars listed their inputs and it is not a random group. It is a highly self-selecting group of either 50BB min deep professionals or shortstacks. The minority of professionals just screwed over the majority of players on the site.


And, LOL @ using player surveys over watching their actual buyin behavior.

But, you guys didn't like the way fish were voting with their feet and wallets

They preferred 20-100 over 50-100

It wasn't good enough for you to allow choice

You had to force players

+1. This is about as fair as they could have made it.

Some ppl ITT are showing their true colours, some ppls idea of fair is forcing fish to play at 40bb+ tables. I am fully open to the possibilty of short tables dying a death but if they do it will be because players have CHOSEN not to play them. I will be fine with that if it happens.

I think these changes will be good. Only thing I don't like are the 20-50 bb tables. These should be changed to 20-40 bb. I don't see the point in having overlapping buy-ins.

These changes are interesting. I would have preferred that the smaller tables have a max of 40 or 35 instead of 50, but other than that, this seems like a good change that will probably make things better, though the lower max of 40 or 35 would have been even better, then you'd really see if the fish like playing short or not. Labeling the tables as is so that one doesn't seem "normal" and the other's special is also a good change. Deep tables are the bomb but hopefully they are more popular than on FT, antes are good too, but they hardly ever run at FT currently so we'll see what happens.

Overall I could see this moving things towards a balanced equilibrium, as much as I want all of the fish to myself in the 40min or deep games, I think that there will be a mix of fish in both games now, which, is definitely better than it has been where MOST of the fish have been at the 20-100 games. It might even be possible that more fish buyin for the middle size game as I believe the major reason they have bought into the "normal" games up to now is because they are labeled "normal". A lot of this will hinge on how the tables are listed and found in the lobby, this lobby/listing implementation is super important to how this plays out. That being said, fish may be more comfortable playing the "big stack" in the small games as they can buyin for 50bb there now and feel like the bad ass, wish the max on those tables was lower.

I dunno, we'll see what happens, I will definitely come back to give Stars a chance, they may have to lower the max buyin on the 20-50 tables at some point to 40 or 35 to further protect the integrity of the game, but time will tell.

This is a definite step in the right direction, thanks Stars for listening and trying to make things better!

++++

This is very nonsensical on Stars' part. At least on FTP if you want to play with 'x' bb in a no limit texas hold'em game then you know what table to sit at. At Stars, that's just step 1 of your decision.

label shallow/normal/deep and lower the max on the shallow tbls

/thread

+1

NO THEY DID NOT. FISH DID NOT PREFER 20-100BB TABLES. they most likely didn't know the ****ing difference. they just clicked and sat. sometimes it was a 50bb min table sometimes a 20bb min table. it didn't change the amount they bought in for.

the key issue is that fish had fun playing in the 20-100bb tables BECAUSE OF THE FULLSTACKERS. we were the ones creating big pots and interesting decisions.

once the fullstackers are removed - like now - the fish will see that playing shorties sucks and they will move with their mice/wallets.

its funny how these changes will destroy the winrates of the few greedy sss-whining big stacks who made this changes even happen. Since these guys cant even adapt versus shortstacks they will prolly get destroyed in the 250bb deep tables and continue breakeven setmine in the 40bb-100bb tables. while the winrates of skilled bss regs, who never complained about shorties will increase together with the winrates of shortstacks.
thx stars <3

Wish PLO would have been treated differently from NLHE, shortstacking isn't really as much of a problem in PLO and three levels might be too much with the smaller player base.

My guess is that the recreational PLO players will buy in to the short and medium tables without blinking an eye or really noticing much of a difference, but give a WTF!! reaction to the deep tables wanting 100bbs and then charging an ante.

LABEL THE TABLES!!!!
SHALLOW
NORMAl
DEEP

Would fix so much.

your lack of respect for your fellow man is appalling

you are telling me that with two years of 50BB min games, the fish never noticed the difference. If that story where anywhere close to true, we wouldn't have seen the fish exodus out of 50BB min games.

If it was merely a problem of default games, then it would have easily been fixed labeling both types of tables. Would you have been happy with just that?

anyone know how this will effect avg vpp/hand?

NO... There is no such thing as "NORMAL"

no doubt you'll be crushing it 2-4 handed too

this is pretty much the only coherent post itt. I'm sensitive to the full stackers but you guys are getting out of control

There's still time to make changes based on everyone's immediate reactions PokerStars!

There's one change it seems everyone agrees on:

Change 20-50bb to 20-40bb

2p2 professionals != everyone

that is where PokerStars has erred time and time again

Yeah, change 20-50 to 20-40 and it looks a lot better.

short stackers will prefer 20-50 over 20-40

I agree

Everyone agrees on [ ]

you're drunk if you think its is going to improve the winrates of short stackers

Going from 20-100bb to 40-100bb will increase the vpp/hand because more flops will be dealt

Won't be a huge difference though

It should go down on the 20-50bb tables because fewer flops are dealt

I think in the 20-100bb tables, a big reason why shortstackers thrived was they were getting VPPs from fullstacks playing postflop pots even when they folded pre. So in a way they were leeching more VPPs than they contributed

But that should change?

Anyone correct me if I'm wrong there?

MT2R -

Just to clarify, your stance seems to be that you have a better grasp of what would be good for Poker Star's bottom line than Poker Stars themselves. Do I have that right?