I had pretty much decided in life that people will bitch no matter what you do. This thread has been a perfect example.

A point I'd like people to explore more:

The way VIP rewards are distributed on PokerStars, every player dealt a hand (whether folded or not) gets the same amount of VPPs at the conclusion of that hand.

In the 20-100bb games of yesterday, assuming an eclectic mix of players at the table, who pays more rake? A professional shortstacker, or a professional poker player?

Who's footing most of the rake bill for the VPPs to be distributed around?

My immediate assumption is that poker players are paying more rake per hand on average than shortstackers, and shortstackers are receiving the same amount of VPPs as the poker players anyway.

That unfair advantage is going out the window with this change because shortstackers won't be allowed to sit with poker players anymore. How much of an advantage was it though?

Are half of them even going to be able to profit at 20-50bb anymore?

Fullstackers that are obsessed with putting pejorative labels on all but their favorite games are showing their true colors. Stars has decided to label things with the actual buyin information instead of the exact prejudicial language that would most benefit the shortophobes...so get over it. The fish will do what the fish will do...20bb games will no longer be Standard, but they will still exist. Stars realizes that a large number of players, both serious and recreational, enjoy buying in with lower amounts relative to blinds.

Some of you really need to calm down about the labels. The fish that enjoy the opportunity to catch with 62s and stack someone deep will play in games with deeper buyins. The fish that enjoy a higher quantity of all-in action will play in games with shorter buyins. The total drool-monkeys likely buyin to whichever game gets them a seat first.

Stars is making the changes they believe will be beneficial to the health of their games. There are aspects of it I don't like as a SS'er and aspects I'm okay with. The same is true for FS'ers...but quit acting like Stars owes it to you to force-feed as many fish to the exact tables you want. They've made some changes that more easily segregate you from SS'ers...you'll just have to take the good with the bad. You'll get away from the SS grinders, but in the process you will lose all SS fish and some mid-stack fish. You're the ones who wanted the buyins segregated, and just because Stars wanted to implement a system that didn't drive rake machines like me completely away from the game doesn't mean they've screwed up. In fact, these changes seem completely fair -- the games will do what they do now, and nobody should really have much of anything (reasonable) to complain about.

100% agree with this post...

20-50 was so ridiculous that I lol'd when I first read the suggestion in the other thread... And now it's gonna be implemented...

changes r so good with that one point which basically screws the whole changes up...

if worse comes to worse many regs will start playing a 50BB strategy...

only hope I have is that fish realize that there is no fun playing with 7 shortstacks and another fish and then playing the normal game...


+1 for a clear labeling

20-50 is a SHORT table and nothing else and it should be labeled as such / 100-250 is a DEEP table and should be labeled so obv... How you label the 40-100 is another story... medium, std, etc all appropriate!

I don't get why the default buy-in is 80bb on 100bb tables? This is way worse than the confusing table labelling.

Remember how we all got excited after Stars said they were considering raising the minimum buy in. So we all thought finally, Stars realized that a certain few were abusing a loophole in the rules, and were going to change it. So instead of just making all tables 35BB min buyin and problem solved, they package this new system (which is exactly the same as the old system), except now we will be forced to play on 20-50BB tables with ratholers, instead of 20-100BB tables with ratholers.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED, don't buy in to this marketing people. Most of you are exceptionally intelligent people, and must be able to see through this when you analyze the situation.

Awesome job stars, I'll be the first to admit I have some problems with pokerstars but this more than makes up for all of them.

I am sooooo happy with this change and I'll now be quite happy that pokerstars is my home for online poker.

What the hell?? You're saying the game is MORE complex when people shortstack? Yes, you have to adjust on the fly but the strategy is less complex, and you STILL will have to adjust when people buy in for 40. Honestly did anyone how the fish did NOT flock to the SS games on FT the way everyone in this thread assumes they will on Stars? I would say this is a great idea but God, I just love to complain

well, the backlash from me should have been expected

THEY TOOK AWAY MY GAME

shortstacks get to keep their game. 50BB min deep players get to keep their game. That covers most of 2p2. But, they took away my game.

I'm pretty happy with this. Hopefully there'll be good action on those deepstack ante tables, but even if all the fish flock to the 20-50bb tables I'm fine with that too. Shortstack strategy is easy and still profitable, the only thing that really annoys me is when there's a mixture of deep and short stacks at the table, which this solves pretty well.

I'd prefer the labels to be:

Normal (20bb)
Deep (40bb)
OMG (100bb)

FYP

it would be nice if Stars switched to contributed rake for the VIP program in 2011

lol, nh

Same thing happened with the 50bb tables being introduced, everyone said "blah blah shortstackers are gone", then they just bitched some more.

default buy-in as 80bb's on 100bb tables is cheap trick stars. what it does is scare off recreational players who hasn't any idea about buy-ins. if i were rec player and i would have choice to sit down on 20-50 table and click ok when pop-up shows up with "buy in for 50bb's" or to buy in for 80bb's on 100bb table which might be considered a big buy-in for me, i would chose to play on 20-50bb table.

65-70bb's as default imo would be best option.

it's all business and for stars it's all about making more rake.

Lets just all see how this goes for a week and then we will know the results. Nobody really knows how this will pan out until we see it in action.

need much longer than a week

it took about 6 months for us to see what a disaster the 50BB min games would be

Would be really sweet to have them named deep, regular and shallow and have the lobby sorted alphabetically by default. That would eliminate most of the gain from the masstablestarting at the shallows, which is unavoidable.

A step in the right direction stars, well played

This!

And this problem is caused by one problem that so many people has pointed out already: the overlapping buy-ins.
1st I don't think that kills the unfair edge the ss's have over other players because the interval is too wide
2nd Fish will realize they can buy in for 40 or 50 bb's on both type of tables, so they'll probably chose the shallow tables because their stake is in grater risk on normal tables
3rd is just supid, I mean... the diferent tables should exist to create different types of environments of play. This way we can have the same type o games on different tables (if everyone buys in for 50bb's). Makes no sense to me.

for me its should be:
20-40
40-100
100-250

or something very close to this

well learn the new game and stop being a whiny little bitch then.

these changes are better for the pro's and the recreational players in the long run. stop thinking about only yourself.

i would have preferred every table to be 50bb min 200bb max but it did not happen and i can still be objective enough to see that an improvement has been made.

move with the times bro or you'll be extinct like a T-REX.

MT2R I think the fact that you are the only one arguing your point pretty much says it all.

Is there any way we can get a poll going in regards to the labeling and/or one in regards to making it 20-40bb instead of 20-50bb????

Overall I think this is a solid step, and could potentially go very well. I'm looking forward to never playing with a short stacker again

I thought stars job was to create fair games that their players, especially losing players that deposit (we all starve without those players) want to play in. You seem to think stars job is to create the exact conditions you want.

Honestly I get so tired of everyone that thinks everyone should be forced to play exactly as they want them to play. That isn't what being a professional poker player is about. The fish play what they want to play. They always have, and they always will. Us pro's dont determain that. Our job is to exploit the fish whereever they show up.

I'm hoping the 40-100bb games will get softer (or at least stay the same as the 50-100bb games have been, which is pretty good lately) but if all the bad players decide to play 20-50bb I'll figure that out. Things change in poker, and pros change with it depending on what the fish do. I don't sit around biching because nobody plays 7 card stud anymore, or limit, or standerd speed sng's. If for some weird reason all the fish decide a stupid 20bb game is the most fun then I wont bitch then either, as long as the fish keep showing up I'll figure out some way to feed the kids.

Just keep the fish happy and depositing. I don't really care if any fullstacking or shortstaking pros are happy, as long as the fish are.

anyway, I'm fine with all the changes and the reasoning.

SteveD- I told you going in the bitching would never stop no matter what was done. I wish I was wrong, or at least less right. This is sadder than what even I imagined.

theres sitll a tweak which needs to be addressed;

20-50 bb
40-100 bb

Needs to be changed to

20-35 bb
35-100 bb

Theres a significant difference between 20bb poker and 50bb poker. 50bb requires a significant level of strategy on each street whereas 20bb is still a simple mathematical raise / reraise preflop

Well it is different this time. I think most the players who were complaining realize that these changes aren't going to change all that much from the status quo. It does suck because they could have taken care of the problem like FTP did. Instead they tried to meet it in the middle and now neither side will be to thrilled.