Quote:
Originally Posted by joeri
I've been thinking about these ratholer suggestions a lot and i think it is way to complex. Its hard to explain to people and i see a lot of loopholes. It also imposes a disadvantages for people playing many hands a day. It will be an advantage for pure bumhunters who just play with droolers and hence few hands a day.
Therefore i think the best way to go about this is making 3 table types, 20bb cap, 40bb cap and 75bb-200bb tables and name the last one the "normal" table (for plo just 40bb cap and 75bb-200bb 'normal' ones, no need for 20bb plo raketrap). This solves the ratholing problem in a way easier way. Offcourse it has nagatives too, but i feel like its better then the complicated system.
I agree with the first paragraph. This identity thing sounds kinda cool at first but when you think about how to make people understand how it works it's just tilting. Too complicated, subject to abuse, difficult to understand, clearly far too difficult to implement etc etc.
Please, please, please no to the second paragraph. Further segregation of the player pool would be worse than the way things are now. We've already been there and done that and it was horrible. If these are the ideas that this guy is going to push for I seriously caution this community for advocating that he go to any future meetings.
The best idea to date was simple, effective, easy to understand, easy to implement, could be coded by Stars' development on their coffee break and would only negatively effect a very small and possibly fictitious segment of the player pool.
That idea that was put forth last year that had a lot of support by this community was limiting the amount of times a player could buy in short to 'X' in a 24 hour period.
When X is set to the optimal number 2 things happen that help to create a poker utopia.
1. Recreational players can continue to enjoy the game the same way they always have because they aren't putting in enough volume for X to have an impact. Even on the off chance that they do hit X in the time frame, a pop up with a link to the website explains the rule and the recreational player finds it easy to understand and most likely shrugs it off as no big deal since this would be a rare occurrence rather than a link to an 18 page document about stack identities that causes them to cash out, uninstall and go play WOW.
2. Small scale ratholing still exists but systematic ratholing is completely eradicated.
So what's the problem?
Stars rejected this idea because of the negative impact it would have on a very particular segment of the player pool. These players are those who:
a) buy in short
b) do not rathole
c) play enough tables or long enough sessions for the limitations imposed by X would not allow them to continue enjoying Poker Stars the way they currently do.
For the rest of this post, I'll just refer to these players as non-ratholing-shortstackers or NRS players for short and hope to make it clear to all that they are indeed fictitious or at the very best an extremely minute group. These players by definition differ from a purely recreational or beginner player in the sense that they play enough tables simultaneously for X to effect them.
I'm sure most regs who play the games day in and day out will agree that this group of NRS players are far and few between. Most players that buy-in short across a substantial number of tables rathole at a predetermined amount the vast majority of the time.
There are of course those ratholers who do stay when they know that the table conditions are too good for them to leave some of the time, but for the most part they are systematically ratholing.
But according to SteveD, there are NRS players who are not systematically ratholing who would be negatively effected by X. This is the only reason why we can't just go forward with X. I've seen these players at my tables that Steve is talking about. They buy in for 40bb and I've noticed them across a dozen or more of my tables with multiple stack sizes sometimes ranging from 40bb up to 200bb. I'd watch them to expect them to leave when the bb came around to them and to my surprise they would stay.
So now I'm completely contradicting myself right? I called them fictitious and yet I admit to have seen them at the tables. The contradiction is in the fact that there is literally no way that these players are NEVER ratholing. Perhaps they don't systematically rathole to maintain a mathematical advantage over larger stacks, but it is almost impossible for them to be true NRS players because that would imply that they never leave a table mid session and replace it with a min buy-in at another table.
Let's take a presumed NRS player that opens 12 tables at the beginning of his session and seeks to maintain that number of tables as that is what they are comfortable with and helps them to hit their vpp/volume goals and what not. For this player to truly be a NRS player, they must never leave a table other than to end their session. This is where I call BS and say that NRS players are fictitious. If a player is playing enough tables to be effected by X then they are almost certainly employing some semblance of a strategy or system at the tables.
There are a lot of reasons why a supposed NRS player could leave a table with a stack size greater than 40bb and open another table with exactly 40bb other than for the sole intention of ratholing.
One reason is that the table goes shorthanded. A NRS player who is mass tabling is probably not going to want to play shorthanded especially since things are actually more complicated for these guys because they're playing such a wide range of effective stack sizes at a given time.
Another reason is just realizing that either the table or their particular seat is just -EV for them so they leave regardless of what their stack size is. That is fine but if they happened to buy-in for 40bb and leave with 45bb, then sit down at another table with 40bb again, it's still a rathole.
This is why this group has to be fictitious. Sure there are players who put in the volume but don't deliberately rathole for the typical reasons, but they still rathole. Should we make exceptions to rules based on intent? Certainly NOT!!! That could only lead to another year of meetings of discussion on how best to implement software features that reads peoples minds to determine whether they are ratholing to maintain a mathematical advantage over larger stacks or for other trivial reasons.
I can respect Stars for not wanting to alienate any segment of their player pool, however, its hypocritical to go to these lengths of not implementing a near perfect solution to the problem so as to not alienate a minute or completely fictitious segment of the player pool at the expense of a very large and loyal one.
I hope Stars can see the light here and stop pretending that NRS players are a real thing worth working around. Even if they never ever intentionally rathole, they still have to be doing it some of the time unless they just mindlessly 24 table with with 40-200bb stacks with no regard for any kind of table selection.
Oh but wait, that would be impossible because nobody is putting in that volume with zero table selection and beating today's games. Implementing X amount of short buy-ins in a 24 or 18 hour or whatever would actually benefit these NRS players regardless of whether they are winning or losing.
In order for them to be winning players without systematically ratholing then they must be competent at their stakes with deeper stacks so they benefit by not being allowed to buy-in short great than X times in the given time frame and play deeper more often. Not to mention the fact that mass tabling is easier when your stack size is more consistent. When I 24 table and see a flop with a player who has 67bb I dont need to look at my stack because I know that I have them covered. The only time I need to glance at my own stack is when I am involved with players that are at least semi deep since the difference between 100-125bb stacks is pretty negligible. Mass tabling, buying in short and not ratholing would require you to check your own stack size every single time you are in a hand with a player over like 45bb. Anybody who multi tables knows that fractions of seconds are precious so playing more consistent stack sizes would benefit these supposed NRS players especially if they are already winning.
If they are losing players (can't understand why anybody would put in substantial volume for X to be a factor and still not be winning at least post rakeback) then you are doing them a favor by either a) limiting their volume a bit and thereby making their bankrolls last longer or b) giving them an incentive to rethink their game plan.
Please Stars, just do it. Limit the number of short buy-ins to some optimal number for some optimal time frame and just be done with it. It would be the best thing you've done in the last couple of years.
Last edited by LazyAce; 05-20-2013 at 03:27 PM.
Reason: just some tweaks and fixes