Mainly because it's a safe and easy way to maximise your $/hr return perhaps?

Just like multitbaling full stacked on 12-16 tables one level lower than the level you could beat if you played 4-6 tables and concentrated?

And SS requires about as much skill as SnG's or the average donkament - should we ban those?

Quit with the special pleading that it's 'ruining the game you love' etc. and that's why you want it banned. You want it banned because it's getting in the way of you getting at the fish.

I've been playing online poker for 6 years - there have always been a substantial minority of (usually) bad players that buy in short to try to lose less slowly while they learn or who are taking a shot from microstakes etc

If a few of those players get to the stage of eking out a tiny win-rate (dependent on RB usually) is that really what's 'ruining the game'?

No, what is ruining the game is the ability of a winning player to play 8-16 tables at once. No-one did that 5-6 years ago - most sites had 4 tables as the cap.

Nowadays they are helped on many sites by time-banks - a great idea to let a player take time to make a difficult decision but now abused by the 12-16+ MTers who make everyone else wait for them time after time. A time bank should be available once per player every 5 or 10 minutes, not every hand on every table.

I don't think I've ever seen a fish complain about a shorty getting all-in.

But I've seen plenty of fish leave a table because of the nit multi-tabler (who can be short or deep - it doesn't matter) timebanking his fold every other hand ...

Obviously I didnt read this thread or the last ten like it. We really need a "I hate shortstackers whining thread" so all these repetitive threads can just be merged.

shortstacking requires no skill. Hence you are all breakeven to 1pt winners. If you had more skill, you would be fullstacking winning at 3-6pt.

Dont ever call yourself poker players, because real poker players think you are LEACHING SCUM OF THE EARTH.

and thats the truth, nothing you can do about it.

A sng is not a cash game....period.A person playing 8 or more tables is not as good as he would be if he was playing 3-4 tables ,so that argument doesnt stand up either..........Once again you are missing the point,you are turning the game into a farse by not wanting to play even one street of poker.

In terms of real money earned per hour, 24 tabling at 1.5 pt is more profitable than 8 tabling at 6pt.And real money is more important tbh because in the real world, I can't buy anything with just an 'impressive' big blinds per 100 statistic

It is easier, less stressful and very fun and I can play higher than my normal limts! I understand other don't enjoy it but I do. I also enjoy full stack play. Sue me.

There is more than one way to Rome, why do you feel the need to burn down and block all the routes except the one you have self-righteously designated to be the only acceptable route.

Stars has spoken.
There are sufficient tables for both types of player and I agree with their conclusion.

Play on FTP if their response is unsatisfactory.

If they have half a brain they would sit down at 50bb min tables. If they can't figure that out then poker probably isn't for them and should just quit anyway.

if this is your earn rate then i can't say i blame you for doing it,we're all in it to earn a living,but i stand by what i say........its the state of the game 2-3 yrs down the line that im concerned about.At the moment i don't even think ss really effect my bottom line,but they are altering the way the game is played for the worst.

yeah but atleast i can sleep at night knowing i am playing poker. not clicking buttons based on a hand chart. You might aswell be a garbage man because your job requires the same level of intellectual brain power.

I really care less about you doing it, what i care about is i have to change the way i play because of you. You decrease my edge against the bad players and are costing me money, not because i dont know how to play vs shortstackers, its because you stop me from exploiting bad players.

I think it's pretty obvious Stars will do something eventually and FTP is just the first step. I play at FTP and am super-stoked, but I think it's fair enough to assume at some point Stars will need to come to the same conclusion or lose a lot of business.

Shortstackers, Enjoy!

lol stars would love it if winning players boycotted them.

DUCY?

I think breakeven Stars players would like it a lot more.

Yes, all the fish should just quit the game

This right here typifies a lot of the arrogance of the people posting in this and the other Shortstacks threads, and I'm guessing half of them (including the person I'm quoting) won't even get what I'm talking about.

This

+1

Stars is number one for a reason. Everybody else is just chasing.

I'll look forward to the improved quality of the games at Stars if FT implements the higher buy-in situation as was mentioned earlier. This could be awesome.

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

want some whine with that cheese?

@Bob: +1

FTP raises min buyin. Fish go busto faster. Fish get sick of it and move to stars. Crappy SSers (95% below 200nl) move to Stars. Stars and everybody at stars profits.

Are you talking about an influx of shorties? Enjoy!

Yes, I'm talking about more bad shortstacking regulars at Stars while the deep-stack nittier types who are more bothered by this type of thing (and who I consider to be far tougher players) migrate to FT. As I said before, I vastly prefer about 90% of the shortstackers over most of the deeper-stack nits.

Basically, I believe it could create a situation at FT that is relatively close what is currently with the 50BB tables at Stars.

I agree that Stars should definitely add CAP games, it's a nice change.

+2

jglsd - You may think we agree on a lot of this stuff but actually I don't think we do.

FWIW, I don't agree with your take on the order of things like "fish go buster faster and then move to Stars." Mostly I think the deeper-stack nits will be more interested in playing on FT and it will create a situation somewhat similar to what we currently see on the 50BB tables on Stars. Not all the way the same but it's like an attempt by FT to get there.

I agree on the bit about the number of crappy SS'ers who will be moving to Stars....although not all of them will move. Some of them will just play lower and buy-in for whatever the new minimum is and try to make that work.

I could be completely wrong on my take on all of this and maybe the SS whiners are correct that the tables at Stars will be tougher or worse with the influx of SS'ers coming over. I don't claim to have all the knowledge on this...just my own opinion. I'll be very interested to see how it all breaks down when this stuff starts. Should be some fun popcorn-crunching entertainment!

adding cap games dont solve the problem of having ss n regular tables. there just wont be enough cap tables so nothing would change.

stars switch t ocontributed and lets go. it hurts like bitch to know i'd be maybe getting 1/4-1/3 more rakeback on contributed and now nits and **** shortstacks are getting my rake.

+1 Don't see anyway they can keep their status quo if FTP gives shorties the boot.

lol dream on

Howdy Bob,

For presumably obvious reasons it is typically not the nittier type of opponents who are bothered by short stackers. It is the more loose / aggressive type of opponents who are most impacted by rat holing short stackers.

Stars will still maintain plenty of nits and more short stackers than ever. The ones more likely to migrate on over will be the looser players, good or bad. Enjoy.