Its very likely Stars will match what FTP does to keep regs happy.

The obvious solution is to get rid of no-limit holdem.

Good point.

Select a color on villain AND take a note on him.

It has nothing to do with it. I posted a rant about this situation in the MSNL and SSNL Stars Reg thread.

The biggest problem is that there are never seats for fish to sit in a 50BB table. For some ******ed reason, regs always take the last when the rest of table are all regs. On normal tables, there are always seats open because no reg will sit unless there is a fish.

Everytime I keep a table going or help start a table, a fish sits in. It's simple math. Fish don't table select, they just sit down. Since there are a ton of avaiable seats at normal tables and none at 50BB tables, of course they sit at a normal table.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if fish enable the "don't show full tables" feature.

stars always take a year to implemnt anything so i wouldnt celebrate.

It seems like the best solution is playing more 2 and 3 handed poker at deep tables to give fish a chance to sit. But if they still sit predominantly at normal tables, then that shows which tables they prefer.

STOP THE SHORTSTACKING !!!!

The obvious solution is to get rid of all HUD-software, but since that will never happen, we have to accept 6-7 shortstackers on every table

It seems very likely there is a Stars Boycott if they don't take action.

The obvious solution to improving game quality all round is to cap the no. of tables played by any one player at 4.

That way the winning grinders (short or full stacked) might actually have to try to improve and move up in stakes to earn their $/hr rather than just get to a level where they can beat the fish and breakeven (more or less) vs the rest at $100 or whatever and open 16 tables....

Of course this means less rake for the sites and less $$/hr for most of us here but if anyone is still pretending that they are actually interested in the 'good of the game' rather than their own special interest then that's what they should be advocating.

SSers have far less need for HUDs than full stack hudbotters.

Sure banning HUD's would improve game quality but it would probaly hurt good fullstackers more than shorties.

you are not bright

Let's say all sites do this. Then I'll open 4 tables on FTP, 4 tables at stars, 4 tables at cake, etc.

LOL The same argument would mean there is no point in placing any rathole timer at all on a site as shorties can always just open up a new table on another site. I take it that isn't your position on rathole timers though?

Anyway let's just say one site did it (as sites don't act in unison very often) -Stars for example - the players who wanted to play 16 tables woudln't bother to play 4 on Stars and 12 at FT - they would just max out at FT.

In any event even if they did play 4 tables at Stars, Stars would still effectively see 75% less of that player. The overall effect would be that Stars would see a big drop off of hands played by in winning MT reg. players/hour for sure.

Now that might be bad news for those particular players and bad news for Stars overall rake (which is why it won't happen) but it would improve the 'game quality' overall and be good news for the 95% of losing players...and those winning players who aren't playing more than 4 tables.

It's really a way of limiting HUDbotters without expressly banning the HUDs of course.

If you like the site could have 'Pro' tables with fixed 100BB buy-ins that didn't count towards the cap

There are tons of people who like online poker, but that doesnt understand these softwares, have fast enough computers, enough ram, dont have time to do datamining, have screen setups that makes it impossible to use a HUD etc.

That big chunk of the player pool are pretty much forced to shortstack as long as these HUDs exist, since if you gonna play fullstack vs people who have 99% reads on you, then you could as well ask for fi:s bank account numbers and send your money over directly without even playing.

I emailed Stars a few weeks ago, and they told me there were plenty of 50bb tables.

C'mon over to FT guys - plenty of room. :-)

Basically there are hundreds of possible permutations of types of table set up and max tables that a site could adopt.

On 2+2 a disproportionate numbers of the posters are winning players who play more than the average number of tables and are much more likely to use aids like HUD's and take a maths-based approach to the game.

The full stacking multi-tabling players want the site to set up the tables in a way that benefits them.

Guess what? The short stacking multi-tabling players want the site to set up the tables in a way that benefits them.

And there is no-one here to speak for the losing players as no 2+2 poster would admit to being one.

The sites will do whatever they think is in their best financial interest.
Both FT and Stars are private companies so can afford to take a long view of this.
Curently they have pretty much a duopoly of US play.

As a player who never plays cash games on the US sites, I don't personally care what they do unless it sends floods of winning player to iPoker where I play.

That said, if they adopt different strategies and target different types of cash game player it will be interesting to watch from an applied economics perspective.

Please do this, all winning players please join the boycott!

i dont understand people whining about shortstacking...play the deeper tables then!!! just stay away from 40$ min 1-2 tables etc

Im generally always starting the deep tables both at stars and ftp. It seems at ftp I get a lot more started so I pretty much just stopped playing at stars.

A simple solution is just to change the name of the 50bb min tables to normal tables while renaming the 20bb min tables. After all the normal buy inn for live games is at least 40BB and many allow 200BB buy inns.

so what, play the other 2/3 tables and stop crying. 50bb tables prevent short stacks from playing on them, but you don't hear them complaining.

You sit at a 20-100bb table and complain when players sit with 20bbs. Here is an idea. Sit at the countless 50bb min tables.


I think its more a case of not caring what whiny regs think.

Less competent players in my games?
I like the sound of that.

fyp.

gg

hey luna,
dont you see why ssing is bad for poker,just think about newcomers to the game who sit down for the first time and there are 70% ss'rs at the table,they never see a flop,this will put them off,they'll tell others about how pointless their experience was,the game we all fell in love with wont be there for the next gen unless we put a stop to it.
I dont understand why you guys ss in the first place,its just lazy,any person with average intelligence and the will to learn can beat low/mid stakes games.

This explains why the MicroStakes NL holdem forums always have the least amount of people/posts in them.