I don't SS, so I am not one of those guys. But i don't mind playing in games with them. I find they are generally bad. I only play 6max.

I understand in midstakes FR it is a different story but that is no reason to scare off the fish who buyin short.

at the moment with some minimal table selection it not a problem,like i say its the future of the game im concerned about as ftp obv is also.Word is spreading so fast about this easy way to beat the game with just a chart,there seems to be a new ss poping up every week,not to mention all the be fs'rs who turn to it.

This is ridiculous.
I make most of the money from full stacked donks,how about you?
Its the shortstacks shoving QJ+ that prevent me from seing a lot of flops vs the donks,forcing me to tighten up.
Nitty fullstacks dont bother me at all,since they allow me to play a lot more hands with the donks+nits can be outplayed postflop, unlike shortstacks.
Also,i actually prefer to play my AA full stacked,or even better:deep, vs a fish to going all in pre vs a shortie for 15-20 blinds,who scares away the fish with his push.

I firmly believe if Stars would make all tables 40-50bb minimum,the situation would be like 3 years ago,though a little tougher because of more and better regs.
Currently the reg/fish ratio is bad for the games at the 50bb tables and the
ss/fish ratio is bad for the games at the normal tables.
New players,hobby players and the like,simply dont see much flops on the regular tables and go bankrupt too fast on the 50bb tables.

By making all 50bb,the ratio gets better obviously,since the shorties dont play anymore and the regs,especially the good ones,can choose from a bigger table pool,thus allowing the bad players to see more flop and survive longer,in turn increasing the winrate from many players.

i like that idea.

No you are trying to destroy the game for people who enjoy playing shortstacked. If there was NO opportunity to play full stacked I would understand your anger, but there are 50bb tables already.

I'm not a fan of ohama, but I don't run around asking for it to be banned because I'm concerned about the future of NL

fyp

More clueless donks shortstacking above their normal limits giving away money?

There are deep tables to play on at stars. LOTS of them. Stars think so as well. Stop whining.

I'm sure u do. Limit the tables for the Shortstackers you don't like to play against (the mega tablers) but keep the fish who buy in short right?

Integrity of the games my ass, its just a classic case self-serving greed. If fish bought in for 20bbs and open shoved every hand until the end of time and you could just press a call button and get maneys shipped to your account I doubt you would be complaining about the 'future' of the game and such other BS.

LOL,
I didn't read the op or any replies, just the title. I just thought it's funny that luna is now posting in this thread.

No one is taking anyone's ability to play short stacked away, but sites should keep short stacks and full stacks separate. That's what cap games are for, short stacks.

Excuse me if poker stars doesn't offer cap games or a short stack game, I don't play there and again just thought it's funny that people that posted in the FTP ss thread are immediately in this one now.

With that said, Luna, you seem like a bright guy to me who studies the game, if you decide to change your playing style/habits I don't see why you will not succeed.

UB (and AP) had this, offer 40bb-200bb tables. All it does is create eg. NL50 tables where everyone sits down with $100. Effectively what you get is a NL100 table disguised as a NL50 where the blinds are smaller. Smaller blinds promote tighter play because you are only paying half in blinds as compared to a normal NL100 with 100b buyin max.

u think i care about the fish once a week buying in for 20bb and pushing every hand?
I prefer having all tables 40-50 bb min buyin.
I liked that idea,because it would be not that harsh for the shorties.
For the record,i play for fun and for money(in that oder).
Shortstacking isnt fun.
Shortstacking means less money for fullstackers.
Too much shortstacking also means less money for shortstackers.
Most shortstackers fail to realize that at a certain point,say 4+ shorties at the table,they will also take away money from each other.
So,even a professional shortstacker should be worried about too many shortackers on stars.

I seriously think,shortstacking is a different kind of game ,the inventors of NL Holdem Poker didnt wanted it to be.And as such it should be treated differently.
Just do tables with 10-50 bb buyin,call them NL SS tables and let them battle it out under a different tab in the lobby.

Maybe some shortstackers actually will think about it and try to learn the " real" game then and will profit in the longterm by making money FULLSTACKED on regular tables.

OP do you want some cheese with that wine?

Juk

WE MUST AND WILL END SHORTSTACKING FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR GAME,THEY STOP US AND THE FISH FROM PLAYING POKER

LMAO, KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THAT LOL.

yeah,good find juk
My phrasing might be a bit confusing.
skip the surviving part at the end.

To answer your question OP, Stars is prolly lol-ing at the retarted ftp descision and will welcome the shorties with open arms. In fact they're prolly giving out loyalty bonuses to shorties as we speak.

If in 2-3yrs time the tables have 90% ss at them stars will have to do somthing.The clock is ticking shorties get those hands in as quick as you can!................MUHAHAHAMUHAHAHAAAAAAAA!...... ....i love the fact that this has made you all rear your ugly heads,you are all panicing and the rest of us LOVE it!........MUHAHAMUHAHAHAAAAA

SHORTSTACKING MUST END OR POKER WILL DIE!

As long as 1/3 of the player base on Stars/FTP is SS, and there are many (somewhat reputable) poker sites promoting this, they won't like to kill this 1/3 of their player base.

I'm not surprised it takes time for Stars/FTP to come up with a stance on this other than the current status quo (50bb min tables).

Simple and similar strategies, no matter if SS, long stack, or whatever will always create the biggest disturbances in poker and be the biggest challenge for the industry overall (apart from laws and regulation, obv).

+1000

You can't reason with whiners. Give the whiners an inch (50bb tables) and now they want a mile (scrapping 20bb normal tables).

+2000

They are effectively seperate, shortstackers cannot play on 50bb tables.
If anything it is the full stackers who have the wider selection of games since they can play on both 20-100bb and 50-100bb tables.
The true reason for wanting to introduce CAP games and changing 'normal games to 50bb is the hope that it forces 50bb games to be more popular and that CAP games will become the niche that eventually dies off. Kinda like embrace, extend and extinguish.

Ooh a rare compliment!


I'm not only a shortstacker,.I play about 50% shortstack 50% full stack, I study both games, i succeed at both games. I enjoy the varying stack sizes and game play in 20-100bb tables, both as a full stack and a shortstack and a half stack. I don't see why that needs to be forcefully taken away.


I hope that 100s of 50bb tables and 100s of 20-100bb tables coexist and both forms of play can have a healthy future and right now as they are. 20-100bb tables enable players to gradually get used to deep stack play. Not everyone ratholes forever, some players might get ambitious and stay after doubling up and eventually graduate to full stacked play.

But the ridiculous die shortstacker die comments,, the stupid 'follow a chart and win' from clueless and lazy ABC 'regfish', the utterly ******ed 'solutions', the many self-serving 'solutions', all designed to increase profitability for that persons game preference is quite annoying.

Lets look at these suggestions (and what the real intention is)
Or in other words:
Ban shortstackers, but keep fish who buyin short

Or in other words:
Ban shortstackers, but keep fish who buyin short

Truth is I bet this person would love it even more if the mini buyin were raised to as close to 100bb a possible. Why 'compromise' at 40BBs?

To put what this poster wants in simple terms:
Ban shortstackers, but keep fish who buyin short

Completely self-serving and as nothing to do with 'saving poker'

Luna,stop cherry picking comments or questions and giving shallow answers or childish comebacks like "you are ruining the game for short stacks" and answer the serious issues about the longterm state of poker.If in 2-3 yrs time 80% of tables have 80-90% ss'rs on them is this good for poker?

Luna, thanks for the reply. I agree and think you have handled your self well.

One thing I disagree on is that if you enjoy playing short stack and full stack and like the choice, then it's easy enough to buy into a short stack game and a full stack game.

I think if the ss'ers were just honest and said they want the 20-100bb tables because of the advantage a 20bb has over a 100bb stack(that is playing a 100bb strat/or against other 100bb players) then they would essentially be on point. I understand that they can't say that though because they would basically be giving in to the argument against 20-100bb tables.

I don't need to repeat what has been said but simply tables should be within a similar range of buy in. I think the furthest they should be is 40,or50bb-100bb. Shorter should be 20-40, and really any 100bb table should be a 100 bi min. So probably "normal" tables should be 40-80bb.

See, you can't really argue the advantage a 20bb against a 100bb has and why it should stay that way because no one is "banning short stackers" or their play. They are simply putting similar stack sizes in similar bi games, and offering a short, regular, and deep game. You can choose any and all to play at any time.

If this were actually a feasible scenario, then you might have an argument. The problem is with something like this happening, this would mean fish have gravitated to 50BB+ tables and those games are actually healthy.

If it's a zero-sum game, then I don't see how a divide between tables where the average stack size is about 25-40BB and one where it is about 70-120BB harms either the SS'er or the long-term fullstacker.

The thinking fullstacker loses these easy 20-30BB stacks to feed upon but has a full table of 50+ BB of which up to a third could conceivably become fish.

Rounders with a clue go where the fish are, and to consider every SSer to be unexploitable and bad for the games is giving the lot of them too much credit. For every competent SSer, there are at least 2-3 that are donators a little at a time.

It's deluded to think that 100BB poker is the accepted way to play poker and the only healthy way for both sites and players to benefit. I don't remember this argument ever occurring when the max BI was 50BB back in the Party days.

The problem is ratholing, not stack sizes. If the presence of a SS and the methodology of said SS play forces you to adapt, then do so.

I've seen tables where they were all SS, and poker still went on. Granted, not multi-street poker with the array of weapons a fullstacker has at his disposal, but poker nonetheless. And I've seen competent players sit down at a table with just 3-4 SSers and play against them.

There needs to be something done about ratholing. I think the ideal solution would be if a SSer who ratholes wanted to return to the table he leeched money off, he would have to buy in with his original stack for 4, 6, or 8 hours. A longer extension of this timer, which is too short as it is, would eliminate the main concern.

(Original stack being the stack he left the table with after doubling up or whatever.)

Everytime I (as a deep-stack nit) isolate the one fish at the table the game is build around and a shortstacker shoves and the fish folds (but would have called my single raise, because limp/calling is what they do all day long), my game is affected.

Fish lose less with a short stack. And good players win less. Money lasts longer in the pokersites which means more players playing more often. Also means more rake is taken on the money as a whole since win rates and loses are narrowed.