if you read this thread the answer you seek lies within

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...ackers-662337/

Because players have conveniently labelled tables by their dollar amount instead of the amount of the blinds in order to create a sense of entitlement with regard to stacksize. Players constantly refer to games as 100nl, 200nl, etc., when in reality the games are defined by their blind size. Even though all players are allowed to buy in for any amount between certain limits, those that buy in for the higher limit feel superior because their poker game plays differently than some others. The supposed "inherent advantage," which is of course undeniable when a 20bb stack is playing against any larger stack, arises only because some players choose to forgo their option to buy-in for 20bb in an effort to make more money.

After making this choice, they become frustrated by the inherent advantage they have ceded to those players who buy-in for the minimum, and thus demand that sites not only make games for players with larger stacks but make all games only for players with larger stacks. Thus, the choice they have made to pursue greater rewards by sacrificing an edge to players who buy in for an amount deemed appropriate will no longer have to be made, and a certain stacksize will be forced on all of their opponents.

FWIW, I have no idea why all no limit games didn't have just one stack size option when they started offering the games. Seems like a mistake; surely one stack size fits all works perfectly well for online games, but it's too late for that I guess.

-Michael

I don't play 20bb ss strategy (though I am aware of it). (Sigh, so many read something into a post that is not there).

Anyone care for Private Tourney?

My statement to possible changes:


Poker room ecology

The most important factor for a poker room is its poker room ecology. To maintain an efficient "ecosystem" a poker room needs the following factors:

- deposits generated by fish in order to establish and maintain liquidity (a positive net wallet cash flow)
- high volume players that turn the liquidity into rake (note that rake is nothing else than liquidity turned into motion and converted into rake)
- soft tables in order to allure regular players that convert this liquidity into rake


As a poker room needs a positive cash flow in order to grow or even to survive, players that win too much are not that good as they cash out very often and thus drains liquidity out of the system. Anyhow those regs are important as they convert a lot of liquidity into rake.

Now let's compare two different players.

Player A plays NL BSS NL00 6 or 9 max on 4 tables witch a winrate of 6 big blinds (3 ptBB) per 100 hands and 400 hands per our.

Player B plays NL SSS NL100 6 or 9 max on 12 tables with a winrate of 1 big blind (0.5 ptBB) per 100 hands 800 hands per hour (due to table switches)

Those assumptions should be realistic, please put in your own numbers if you have an other opinion. This example should only illustrate the problem.

$/h Player A: 24

$/h Player B: 8

In addition we have to consider that a lot more liquidity is converted into rake by the SSS player as he plays a lot more tables.

What conclusions can we make considering those factors?

Player A (BSS player) drains a lot more liquidity on average out of the system while simultaneously converting less liquidity into rake.

Player B (SSS player) drains a lot less liquidity on average out of the system while simultaneously converting more liquidity into rake.

Of course you can also compare a highly winning BSS player to a break even playing BSS player and come to the same result (except for the rake argument, as they tend to play the same number of tables on average)

As you see, the smaller the winrate and the more rake a player produces the better he is for the poker room ecology.

The value of "regulars" whether they are BSS or SSS players is overrated anyway because few of them bring fresh liquidity into the system.

Therefore regular players think that they are more valuable for the poker room as they are in reality. As PokerStars is definitely the smartest poker room of all, I'm sure that they are aware of all the stated points and this is why they take their time to make a decision.

What's the consequence for reality?

It is way more important that fish like the poker room and cash in regularly. PokerStars also perceived this fact and this is why a lot of money is spent in TV commercials.

I play poker for several years and have played Both SSS, BSS and SNGs. I experienced that a lot of fish (non SSS players) like to sit at the table with a small stack and reload it once they are broke.

So what happens if the min buy in is increased?

The fish will lose their money a lot faster, the regs will win the money a lot faster and will cash out the money a lot faster which is BAD for the ecology as it's not sure that a fish will cash in immediately again after getting busted by regs in a short time. If the fish last longer a lot more liquidity is turned into rake (--> profit for PokerStars)

It should be clear that this speaks against an increase of the min buy in.

Another factor speaking against an increase is the freedom of the players. A player should be able to decide how many tables he wants to play at what limit and with how many big blinds.
PokerStars introduced the 50 BB in tables in order to respond of the wishes of some regs (that surely don't like SSS players and want to have fish sitting at their table with a bigger stack which is understandable but not beneficial for the so important network ecology )

Regs that state to switch to FTP aren't worth a mention because they wille be replaced by other regs that want to play on the now even more fishy tables.

It would be astonishing for me if PokerStars wouldn't be aware of those factors and their influence on the longterm succes of the company.

So if PokerStars is clever, minbuyin will not be increased.

Thank you very much for your attention.

The fact that you use BSS for 100bb play and SSS for 20bb play indicates that you are a german ratholer, so double up and leave while you can.

As I stated I play both BSS and SSS.

And as you seem to have no argument at all it seems that I might be right?

Maybe just a little bit?

So you think you are one of the smart (lol) ratholers? I won't waste my time with you

Same to you, you managed to disqualify yourself. Anyway, b2t and behave like an adult.

bla bla bla

there is just one thing fish love above anything else: to see flops.
the second thing they love: see turns with their draws
and the last thing, guess!

when everytime they limp in, they get shoved over because there are 8 braindead shortstackers sitting, the fish will not come back to play. fish come back because they have fun seeing flops, turns and rivers. whey the fun part is gone, so are the fish.

This is why especially on the non min 50 BB min tables you see not one single fish.

oh wait...

50bb min table:


fish dont care where they play, they take any table with a free seat. the reason they are playing more on non 50bb tables, because there are more non 50bb tables.

there are more regs on 50bb tables, because the REGs decide for that table they want to play poker not bingo.

Those who assume that SSers will stick around and become new donaters at the tables if the buyins are changed are wrong.

Bad SSers of course will stick around and continue to lose, but they were already doing that anyway with 20bbs, and it would be better for Pokerstars if losing players lost their money at a slower rate.

Winning SSers who can win with 100bbs will probably drop down a level or two and play some less tables but continue to win.

Those SSers who are currently winning with 20bbs but will not win with 100bbs will leave the tables. People who 24 table 6 hours a day play purely for profit and nothing else are not casual players, they simply wont play if it's not profitable. They will either go shortstack another site or find another game they can profit at such as SnGs.

Great...all this sounds good to me.

Sry forgot the "non" --> non 50 BB min

to the irony didn't work ^^


So if the 50 BB min tables are that fishy why do you complain? Play there and be glad.

Fewer players in the player pool, players that once mass-tabled now playing 4 tables, fish going broke faster....might sound great to you but there might be more important considerations for Pokerstars than keeping you happy.

A short-sighted numbers post...

Longterm success is only achieved when the games are enjoyable for casual players.

Yes short stackers create a ton of rake, but soon a point will be reached when they will cost more rake than they produce( 1 example of many:casual players dont want to limp 78s and get shipped 20bb over it, so if they cant play the way the like they stop depositing).

And if the SS problem gets solved, there will be a ton of more regs 16 tabling those 35bb+min tables. So the volume drop isnt so 1 on 1.



BTW: persons annoyed by this thread, this is a serious issue and by no means should be silenced because you are sick of reading it. "repetition is the mother of wisdom"

Large sweeping exaggerations based on what is faulty (or at the very least flawed), assumptions.

All the sites have made the change now...clearly they feel there is more upside than downside. Based on what Negreanu has said (along with all the other sites making the change), it is safe to say that PokerStars "important considerations," are going to lead them to making the change.

no1 cares if u guys want to shortstack, thats why we've been advocating for shallow tables. we just dont want there to be such a large disparity between the buyin amounts. since the first page of this thread no shortstacker has to replied to steels question... would u guys have a problem playing on 20-40bb tables? ur stack size negatively affects ours, why should u be allowed in our games?

uh-oh...quick! someone change the subject!

Keep playing at min 50bb tables and don't cry guys. More tables you create more fishes find them. Don't support dictatorship. If PS don't want short's rake there are plenty of rooms that welcome that cash with smile.

The funniest thing is these changes are against big stake regs which is proven at FTP. What changed? Shallow tables are the fishest with twice as high VPiP and higher average pot. Standard tables haven't changed. You have no shorts and you still tag and kill the game. Third as important Russians already develops 35bb sss and it looks pretty yet. 4th: it's easy to find full 100+bb stakes at shallow tables so looks like some of you already miss short fishes.

For the record, there are not plenty of rooms that welcome that cash with a smile. Most of them have already made changes and certainly all of them will in due time.

Finally, it sounds like you think the way FTP has it set up doesn't have any negative impact on ssers at all. So, great...nothing to worry about for them. I've been playing at Tilt and I can assure everyone that the standard tables are not only a million times more fishy than the 50bb tables on Stars...there are tons more of them. Short stackers are free to play on the short tables, so no need for them to be unhappy. Take note Stars...everyone at FTP is happy and this short stacker says that they will be fine if you implement the same. Make it so!

I love when the shortstackers come in these threads boasting about how great any change would be for them and they would make so much money, but are still dead set against any change.

It is definitely the funniest part.

Awesome!

i cant wait til they make the change so i dont have to keep switching my filters just to play euro tables =)
these 35bb min tables are awesome