all tables 50bb min. but you see the problem with making all tables that size is people who want to play 20-40bb "poker" dont have a place to do so. because tournies and SNGs are all play so deep.

and if they want to play a cash game give em the tables that FTP made.

I am starting to think there is a second chart on Intellipoker next to the preflop hand chart. The second one contains dumb rebuttals to fullstackers as to why shortstacking is justified.

1. "Adjust to the shortstackers then"
2. "There is no mathematical edge for SS (20bb + 20bb = rathole AMIRITE?)"
3. "Ratholing is not illegal, therefore its ethical and encouraged"
4. "Join 50bb tables"
5. "ZOMG, we are just trying to help the fish!"


Cue mindless SS rant about how fullstackers are the true whiners even though fullstack poker has been around longer than anyone on this forum. SS poker is an abomination that was created due to a loophole in online poker rules. Close the ****ing loophole!

lol one of best arguments ITT

Wtf are you talking about. That's what playing optimally means, assuming everyone is playing optimally with equal stack sizes. The whole point is that because one player has a shallower stack, the 6 players cannot all break even minus the rake -- 1 player will have a different winrate than the other 5.

I didn't intend my post to be deep detailed game theory about what happens when a 20bb stack plays with five 100bb stacks. I intended it to be a plain English explanation so that people could get the general idea. How is optimal play not a reference to game theory? I mentioned that you need to have a basic understanding of game theory because if you have no idea what optimal play is (judging from your statement above, you don't seem to), then my post may not make sense.

This is directly related to what I am talking about. In this case, the optimal play for the fullstacking reg is to exploit the fish. However, if he plays optimally he loses money to the shortstacker. This is directly related to the stack sizes and not to any skill advantage. So how is this not a mathematical advantage?

You phrase it in a shortstack-friendly way (i.e., "Their style of play... may cut into profits of the full stackers"), but it is exactly the same thing. Yes, the fullstacker can ignore the fish and play optimally against the shortstacker -- just like a fullstacker in my example could do the same thing. In both cases they lose EV -- in your example the reg happens to keep winning because his play, though not optimal, continues to exploit the fish; while in my example the reg would lose more money because his play would be exploited by the other fullstacking regs.

Whether you like it or not, this is game theory.

Cbrash,

I don't know why you're arguing math edge. They do not have an intrinsic mathematical edge to win. They are a poison to the games because it is easier to learn to rathole .5/1 8 hours a day after spending 5 hours making a few hand charts to get SNE and have 100k years than it is to make 100k playing 1/2. They do not have an "innate math edge" because if he plays at a table with 5 other shortstackers he will bust. Thats the semantics they are arguing, no one thinks that shortstacks don't have an easy edge situationally due to game & stack structure.

Again, if someone is willing to nit up and not play the fish the shortstack loses his "math edge," thereby making it situational. So stop debating this point, no one cares, we all know how shortstacking works. It doesn't make them more desirable to play against. The real issue is that it's easier to get a -.1 ptbb winrate over 24 tables mindlessly shorting than it is playing fullstack poker. Given a culture, tradition, and history of fish liking real poker, in addition to shortstacks being a parasitic function of bigstacks, bigstacks have a clear edge in this argument.

Full tilt recognized this, Pokerstars is recognizing this, and if the bigstack argument weren't so compelling, neither would.

If you don't believe that the lack of effort is why shortstacking is such a problem, think of if it took thousands of hours of hard work to near the success of a fullstacker. Do you think anybody would give a **** then?

lol, nice one Sugar Nut.

Wtf does this have to do with whether there is a mathematical edge? No one is arguing that a shortstacker has some mathematical edge when the table is filled with other shortstackers! The mathematical edge itself is because of the differences in stack sizes.

AFAIK there are people arguing against this ITT. In any case, I'm failing to see how an "edge situationally due to game and stack structure" is not mathematical.


This is so tilting.

Here's an interesting quote from a thread on the FTP forums. A small bit support for some of the claims in the thread that fish prefer to see flops.

http://pokerforums.fulltiltpoker.com...gy-t97952.html

6. Debate the semantic difference between "innate mathematical edge" or "edge because of a buyin loophole thats forbidden and higly unethical in all other kinds of poker except online poker" until everyone leaves.

The relation between stacksize and optimal play and how it relates to mathematical edges between ranges is very basic poker theory. Read any SnG book, any MTT book, Mason Malmuth article on short stacks, Ed Millers site recommendations on SS play and why its profitable, heck the only Omaha book 2p2 has published (Jockusch) devotes at least 40 pages on the edge a short stack has over a fullstack table solely because of stacksize. The problem is that this knowledge is so basic to all semiregular/regular players (including decent SS) thats its laughable we are debating it here. Its convinced me of following: 1. People arguing SS side of this argument are rats because they are lazy losing fullstack players. 2. Iv said it before, I think its foolish of fullstack regs to come here and educate Rats on why and how they obtain an edge. So just stop it, it serves us no purpose to learn them how to rat better.

If you are saying that stacksize has no baring, then by all means play on short tables when Stars creates them. Stars wont discriminate these tables by calling other tables "regular". That way theres plenty of fish for both of us. And you can rathole your brains out, you just will play with other players that are short. Heads up! This will require more skill, you cant rely on charts only. If you dont understand the last statement you dont understand basic stack theory.

Oh and to reiterate a point already made: On a table of 5 1000bb players and one 5bb player, who will profit if all players play to maximize their individual EV? I just wont do the math of this problem for you, as I said it will only educate the 50nl breakeven pugs in this thread.

Regular tables are already shallow tables, there are 4-6 shortstackers at each 6-max table.

[ ] knows what a shallow table is

Q: In a ring game full of only expert deepstack players, who has the edge?
A: Nobody, which is why such tables aren't usually played in real life and are stupid examples for anything.

Q: At the above table, continuously played with several deep fish present, who has the edge?
A: The deepstack experts. They all win some money from the fish.

Q: What happens if we put an expert shortstacking ratholer bastard (SSRB) at the above table?
A: He tends to take some money out of the game and leave a winner.

Q: Do the deepstack players still win?
A: Yes, the money provided by the deep fish is a helluva lot more than the SSRB took out of the game.

Q: Did the SSRB's winnings come from the deepstack experts or the fish?
A: Maybe some of both, it's irrelevant. He took some out of the game.

Q: Who wins the most in the above game, the deepstack experts or the shortstacking ratholer bastards?
A: Without a doubt the deepstack players win many times more money.

Q: What does it mean to have the advantage or edge in a particular game?
A: You tend to win the most money in that game.

Q: Does the shortstacker ratholer bastard do the above?
A: No.

Q: What does it mean to have the advantage or edge over a specific player?
A: You tend to win more from them than they do from you.

Q: Does the SSRB have an advantage over any particular player in the above game?
A: He can if they refuse to adjust.

Q: Are there mathematical advantages to being a SSRB in a deepstack game?
A: Yes.

Q:Does that mean the SSRB has a positive expectation?
A: Yes.

Q: Is that the same as saying the SSRB has the edge or the advantage over either the game or over any particular expert deepstack player in that game?
A: No.

Q: Does he?
A: No.

Q: Is it fair for a SSRB to play in a deepstack game?
A: Probably not, but not because he has an intrinsic unfair advantage over the game. See above.

A table with a low minimum and maximum buyin. There are lots of 6-max that already work as if they were shallow (shortstacks go out when they double up, reach 30bb or whatever, and the deepstacks, if there's any, plays with a shallow effective stack).

Cool, we'll make them 20BB cap and you can play the game you really are. Then you'll lose your loophole/edge and crawl back under a rock.

[ ] Knows what a shallow table is

If stars had a 50bb minimum across all tables, I'd start playing there again.

They have limits from 2nl up, so there is no reason for anyone to be playing with less than 50bb at any limit except 2nl.

I'm not in favour of the 35bb, it's still ss. If they really want to cater for ss, they can make 20-40bb shallow tables for them to play on. Every other table should have at least a 50bb minimum to play, otherwise they are just feeding of the other players rakeback and angle shooting.

I wouldn't change 2nl as it's not like there is a ss problem there and ofc maybe some people only have a few cents left to play and let them play if they want.

LETS JUST MAKE IT OFFICIAL! Great argument Verd.

Unfortunately, we have to wait a month and a half for Stars to make a decision...even though nothing new is being argued. The only thing that is going to change is that the problem will be worse by then and people will have spent more time chasing VIP levels that they will feel stuck going for, even if the desired outcome in unfavorable. This also leaves me playing elsewhere for a month and a half while they make up their minds.

How could it possibly take that long? Say it is complex if you want, but really it is just about making up your mind. Change it or don't, then announce it. End this nonsense.

I'm sure also that once Stars makes a decision, whatever changes they plan to make will not go into effect until 2011. At the very least, they will do some sort of phase-in process and keep 20bb tables alive for the rest of the year.

FWIW.

You continue to miss the point.

If a shortstack plays optimally in a deepstack game, he will always win money. This is most definitely an edge over the game. In fact, it is an edge over every single deepstack player in the game, expert or fish. Alone, this is not such a big deal. It's hard to make that edge meaningful sitting at a single table playing a few hands, and nobody plays perfect poker anyway, even shortstacks. When combined with multitabling and ratholing, it does become an issue.

Probably, but at least I explained the logical path to my own point. It isn't really worth arguing over since it's not the main point of the issue anyway. I agree there should be narrower buyin ranges to put players on an equal footing, and that the deep table minimums should be well above the point where a push/fold game is a viable strategy.

You're sure about that, huh? Read the OP again. They plan to make a decision AND implement any changes by mid-April of this year.

You guys look back at the VIP changes they waited until the beginning of this year to make, and you think they should take the same approach with any SSing changes. What you apparently fail to realize is that the reason they were able to wait for the new year to make the VIP changes was because there was no urgency needed. They do not have that same luxury in this case. They can't let the problem fester for the rest of the year.

and what is the max buyin for these tables?