[QUOTE=FortunaMaximus;15539922]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 nothing was done,i think this is very feasible in years to come
and so do ftp.Good to see you using the word 'HEALTHY' when mentioning the 50bb tables.There is a reason we and the poker community are discussing this,it is high on the agenda at all poker sites i suspect for the same reason.The reason is the normal tables are not 'HEALTHY',some people who reg use them are not happy and because they can't play POKER!

???

Yes we know your are, Tony.

This is the elephant in the room, so please try to understand it.

The decent shorties have the effect of protecting the fish from the reg. fullstackers (who bust them out twice as fast because of their far higher win rates). Of course the reg fullstackers hate them for it, that's a given. And the shorties pay for their edge vs the aggro fullstackers this by giving up the ability to take more than say 25BB's off a fish (as opposed to a full stack reg who might take 4 or 5 BI's of a bad fish at one table at one sitting) and so end up with very marginal winrates at best.

The decent fullstackers then ignore the blindingly obvious fact that their presence playing 12-16 tables is far worse for the quality of games on a given site than the shorties they so want to see banned (they claim for that reason). In general terms, the faster the casual players are busted out, the worse for the longevity of poker.

If the decent shorties are banned then, after the initial feeding frenzy, the site runs out of what are currently the fish twice as fast. And the site sees half the revenue from those fish in rake that it would have done under the old status quo btw..

Unless the site can somehow double its fish recruitment rate indefinitely, that means the games are bound to toughen up and, in the end, the marginally winning deep stackers become the losers - they become the fish in effect because there is no-one else left.

The site might not mind much in the end, because the situation self-adjusts get back to the situation where no-one is winning at a huge rate and they will then increase their % of the take in rake.

At least that is what seems likely to happen if FT increases the min BI above 30BB's.

Now I could be wrong about this (it's just a guess based on assumptions about the poker ecomony after all) and I'll be around to eat humble pie if needed in 6 months the normal tables at FT are some sort of poker nirvana, but frankly I don't see how you are going to avoid a toughening up of the tables that cause MT regs to have a worse win rate than at present.

The other issue is just how righteously sanctimonious the 16 tabling HUDbotting full stack regs are in these threads and how much they whine about shorties having an unfair edge over them and it's not personal self-interest but 'the good of poker' that they are waging this war for.

If they wanted to wage a war for the good of poker they would be petitioning sites to ban HUDS and cap each player at 4 tables max..as it was 6 years ago at the old Party Poker - now that WAS poker nirvana (and yes I'm aware general skill sets and the US legislation mean we can never get back there, but more than halving the number of tables that the best players play on would certainly have a big effect in the right direction)

What a load of **** you talk and once again a shorty avoiding the most important issue.The FUTURE of poker IS being jeopardised buy the influx of massive amount of ss'rs.Can't you get this into your thick skulls.Who gives a **** if someone is playing 16 tables atleast hes playing POKER and he would be twice as hard to beat if he was playing 2-4 tables in fact these mass tablers are very exploitable,they'de admit that themselves.Full tilt must of had a good long think about this and others will follow because they'll have no choice when the situation becomes even more ridiculous in the near future.

YOUR TIME IS UP SHORTIES THROW YOUR CHARTS IN THE BIN.....

Jesus Tony, I've been very vocal against shortstackers, and I'm happy FT is doing something about it, but your childish yelling and pedestrian antics are embarrassing and aren't helping anything here.

defo a shorty

What part of "I've been very vocal against shortstackers, and I'm happy FT is doing something about it" is confusing to you?

Ok, this whole "short stackers protect fish" thing is just absurd and has to die now.

The reason earn rates go down when short stackers abound is very very simple.

1. The average poker player is a losing player.
2. The average short stacker is roughly break even or very slight winner.

Any given seat at a table will have an 'average' poker player at it, by definition of average.

Replace that player with a short stacker and suddenly everybody's earn rate drops since you replace a player who is losing money with one who is breaking even or earning money. Very simple.

It has nothing at all to do with protecting fish. You're just making the table ratios worse, as you're replacing losing players with breakeven/winning players which drops earn rates for everybody. It's analogous to somehow trying to argue that 16 tabling nits are good for the games since they protect the fish.

the part after it....i'm just trying to make sure people can see why ftp and the poker community are concerned about the ssing situation and the health of the games so i have to keep repeating myself evry time some shorty say 'but there 50bb tables' or 'mass tables are ruining it too' or 'it just because u cant make as much money'.I notice your coment didnt offer anything on the issue and i may be wrong yes i do think you are a shorty.

All I was asking was for you to conduct an adult, civil discussion on the matter. This post from you does just that. We're not neanderthals here.

And just because I disagree with your method doesn't mean I disagree with your message. Please look up all my posts in the "Attn: all shortstackers" thread and come tell me how much you think I buy in for.

The self-serving ones are the ratholing shortstackers, like yourself, that are trying to preserve their ability to leach off of full stacks. If the games were effectively seperate like you claim, one should be short only, and the other deep only. I like how you 'know' the CAP games will already die off before they even started... what analysis is this on? If all of you shortstacks played CAP games they should thrive.... or could the real reason you ratholers are so against playing on CAP tables, because your money comes from taking advantage of a flaw in the system. You HAVE to play at a table with 100bb stacks so you can shove over an open raise/ isolation raise / light 3-bet from players playing 100bb poker... then leave of course because your chart didn't tell you what to do with over 25bb.

If you were a good fullstack you wouldn't be playing shortstack 50% of the time as everyone knows you can make more playing fullstack poker. Nobody would play such a boring, simple, unethical game of ratholing if they could beat full stack poker for more. The irony is that all of your 'self serving' comments best describe yourself.

Nobody had a problem before with the fish buying in for less than 100bb, in fact, the huge majority of fish already buyin for 40bb+. Stop grouping fish and ratholers in the shortstacking category as 99% of you 'shorstackers' are also ratholers and that is the problem. Fish don't rathole. Everyone knows when we refer to shortstackers in these threads we are talking about ratholers... well everyone but you apparently

The argument against the current 50bb tables is fish don't like them, so why do people keep suggesting this? Won't it be kinda funny if when they raise the buyin at normal tables the fish move to the cap games?

1. I'm pretty sure you don't know the definition of average (hint: the average of 1, 2, and 3 is 2, but at any given number in that sequence you will not neccessarily find 2)

2. The argument of the regs is that they lose money that they would have made because they can't isolate fish, ect. The people happy SSers are leaving are mostly happy because they think they'll make more money.

The money either has to come from the fish or the site, do you think FT would do this if the money was mostly coming from the site? Whether the fish will lose enough extra money for it to make a difference remains to be seen, but if the regs win more the fish lose more, which is what the SSers protect them from.

The far majority of 'fish' are recreational players that you'd see in your home game that want to have the rush of building up a deep stack. The huge majority of fish already buyin for 40bb+ so making tables 50bb min would have little effect on them.

IF many fish did move to CAP games that is their choice, and good players would follow them. At CAP games it would be an equal playing field, and that is what we are arguing for. Not the current unequal playing field where players playing 100bb+ stacks are essentially playing a different game then those buying in for 20bb. This is not hard to understand

Why stop with those allegations. Let's get to the real issue with Juan and Stars. He multi-accounts, which surely Stars must have allowed by not shutting down his old account when he became a pro for them. According to several online sources (Card Player for one: http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-play...-juan-maceiras), his Pokerstars SN used to be vietcong01, which is still being used (employing the same half stack strategy as well) according to PTR.

I haven't/didn't email Stars this information because I was too lazy but your post just reminded me that I noticed this a few months ago.

You affect the game of LAG's. Pot meet kettle.

In a perfect world there would be no shorties or deep stack NITS.

You're beyond naive if you actually think the whining on these forums was the sole or even a major factor in Full Tilt's final decision to get rid of rat holing short stackers. We may have helped start the initial internal discussions, but if they felt keeping rat holing short stackers would earn them more money in the longrun there is exactly a 0% chance they would ever get rid of them.

And as a result of all of this, there is also a 100% chance that similar internal discussions are taking place at Stars right now. Better keep your fingers crossed.

1. Why are you making a big deal of his use of average... saying the "average person" is this or that is a common saying and was easily understood, even if not 'mathematically correct'. Lets change it for you, 90% of poker players lose after rake. Adding a short stacker that is break even or better after rake makes all players lose more, which makes more players bust and now there are less players to take rake from.

2. The regs just want to be able to play 100bb+ poker like they signed on to do. This includes isolating and 3-betting and doing a lot of things people do that actually play poker, but i'm sure these are all foreign to you.

You have 2 groups of players playing completely different games at the same table, and they should be seperated into CAP and deep tables.

I like how you fail to read. I said the hope from full stackers is that CAP games will die. There is no guarantee they will thrive or not, I'm against it because I don't feel its worth the risk killing off 20bb poker so i'm against changing the status quo.

Cuz I can't shove over an open raise by someone with a 20bb stack? .

Don't know about other shortstackers, but my chart:
Goes.
All.
The.
Way.
Up.
To.
Thirty.
Big.
Blinds.

I call it deep shortstacking.

ok

see above response.


Replace the shortstacker with a 16 tabling ABC 2+2 TagBot and suddenly everybody's earn rate drops even more since you replace a shortstacker who is breaking even, with a player who has a higher win rate ('everyone knows you can make more playing fullstack poker', see post rant #187 for details).

Although in reality I think the rat holing short stackers are just desperately trying to lie to themselves anyhow. Maybe Stars keeps them for another year. But come on, are you guys can't honestly believe these schools that are able to print out innumerous break even or profitable rat holers is something that the sites are going to see as good for them and the games in the long run?

Professionals are terrible for the site. We do nothing but take money that the site would have eventually earned in rake away from the sites. But there's something very important. It's quite difficult to become skilled enough to professionally deep stack. Of the countless players that will sign up to all the video sites, read books, read 2+2 - only a very small percentage will ever be able to develop their skill to a level necessary play this game for a living.

The same's not true of of rat holing short stackers. Obviously the 2+2ism that all the short stackers need is a hand chart is a bit of hyperbole, but it's really not that far off. A hand chart with profitable shove/call ranges at various stack sizes versus various open (and shove) percentages, some basic lessons on what to do in situations where you do so a flop and face a floater or whatever, and I think almost anybody of average intelligence is going to be pretty close to showing a profit already. And there are numerous online schools that already provide all that, and much more.

This is a zero sum game. The economy cannot support this many people taking money out of the games. Rat holing short stacking just isn't something that's going to be around much longer. I think any rat holer with a decent head on his shoulder, and surely there have to at least a few, is probably already realizing it's about time to learn to play or find a new gig.

Sorry if I was unclear, but by the site, I meant Full Tilt, I'm saying if the people complaining in here are going to make more money, the money comes from tilt in the form of less rake being paid or from the fish.

Which do you think it is coming from? If it is coming from the fish, it is because they lost the protection of the SSers that you say doesn't exist. If it's coming from Full Tilt, I guess that's pretty generous of them.

1. The logic of the argument I was disputing hung on the (mis)use of average.

2. I'm fairly confident the majority of people arguing in here (on both sides) are doing it because they think the decision one way or the other will affect how much money they make. I'm sure some are arguing just for the love of the game, but not the majority.

Also I don't shortstack, I play fullstack.

Huh? The call to ban short stackers was almost exclusively driven by people annoyed that they have to effectively play like they're short if they don't want to get completely exploited. Casuals and regulars like want to practice and maybe even improve their poker game. Rat holing short stackers instead force everybody to either also play like they're a short stacker, or give the short stacker money. This isn't fun for anybody, except perhaps the rat holer. It has nothing to do with the love of the game. It's just the expectation that when I go try to play online poker, I'll be able to play poker. What these rat holers are doing would get them kicked out of just about any casino, and who knows what'd happen to somebody who tried to rat hole at a home game. But we're supposed to just accept it because we're playing online?

lol at professionals being bad for a poker site.