[QUOTE] Not without a bigger hand, no. The 100bb player is raising/isolating lighter, because they are playing 100bb+ deep stack poker while the 20bb stack is playing similiar to a SNG. The ranges are much different, but you already know this. This is what you are able to exploit. If you could shove over a 20bb stack just as easily, you would be welcoming CAP tables with open arms.

You and I both know the reason for your defiance. You want to be able to continue to exploit a flaw in the system, as ratholing deepstacks with your chart is the only way you can make any money. You want to play versus other deepstacks, but want to do so as a shortstack... how does that make sense? You are VERY against CAP tables as a viable alternative, apparently you don't want to play against other shortstacks, ironic isn't it?

Then you do indeed have a better chart then most, the poker strategy chart i've seen only goes up to 25bb.

I will speculate why FTP decided to ban shortstackers. I think that reason is simple. The shorties are taking money out of the poker economy at a higher rate than the country or region of their origin can replenish it. Eastern Europe as an example is filled with people who are very good at math (first space flight and stuff) and who had to deal with the economic crisis of the last 20+ years, they had crazy unemployment in the 90's coupled with no pay for people who were working, and insane inflation. All this economic craziness made people better at speculating in goods and currencies or hustling because it was the only way to make any cash.

So now in the internet age these guy's kids are looking for a way to hustle since there isn't a lot of economic opportunity in places like Belarus and Ukraine or even Russia. There is a lot of unemployment and along with the cheaper living costs rathole grinding becomes very lucrative. So I think unlike countries like the US that put money in to the poker economy countries like Russia actually take out a small amount. FTP does not want to appear nationalist so they cant ban Russians or Chinese but they can ban the shorties.

Stop complicating things guys.Shortstacking is coming to an end because they've turned the games into pre-flop farse and the inevitable is starting to happen!

It is true that people will argue for something that benefits them, so to that I completely agree. It doesn't change the fact that one side can be 'right' and one side can be 'wrong'. It is very clear in this case with very little research, that shortstacking is bad for the game, which affects everyone. When you have a 20bb to 100bb spread with no anti-ratholing measures, you are allowing the players that don't care that its scummy, to take advantage. This is a flaw with the sites software. The shortstackers aren't winning due to their great 'skill', they are taking advantage of a flaw in the software with the use of using a simple chart

The game survives off fish. Fish do not go online to get ratholed, it ruins their experience and its all around scummy/unethical. This behavior would never be tolerated at a home game or in a casino, but because its online all of a sudden its OK? If you did this in a casino the fish would be pissed, and might want to take you outside... you really think that just because you can't see a fish's face online they aren't just as pissed when they get ratholed? I hear it all the time in the chat. I'm sure this has already discouraged many fish from continuing to play online, instead preferring casino's or home games where there are measures in place against this.

Also, not to pick on you personally, but I have my doubts about many players defending shortstacking then claiming to fullstack themselves. In your words, "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 not sure I would call a far fetched theory a 'simple reason'. You don't need to be good at math to follow a simple chart and make money shortstacking. It couldn't possibly be because FTP is made up of many professional poker players that never could foresee this ratholing problem when they started their site, and are now trying to rectify it right?

Well said......I don't think you can put an anti ratholing system in place,most of the suggestions i,ve heard would simply spread the shorties across more sites.It has to be min50bb across the board.

Full Tilt have announced that they are increasing the minimum buyin on all normal tables. What are the odds that stars will follow suit? This system of half the tables having min 50bb buyin doesn't seem to be working.

All the anti-ratholing suggestions have been bad. None i've heard so far would actually stop much. People would still get around them by multi-accounting, playing multiple sites, playing multiple limits, etc. There are so many tables at every limit that its too easy to get around.

All the tables should be 50bb minimum, your right it doesn't work with half and half. If people want to play short it should be on CAP tables, there should be no such thing as short to deep tables (20bb - 100bb+).

I have a lot of problems with the whole idea of SSers 'protecting' fish. About 90% of people playing deep stack poker LOSE,which only leaves 10% as winners. If only 10% are winning, how many could possibly be winning at a high long-term winrate of even 2-3+ BB/100 after rake? ...not many. Whereas, it is EASY to shortstack with a chart and a small amount of study and break even, and i'm sure the far majority of SSers break even (maybe 80%+)

Every SSer that breaks even at the tables is taking 3-4 BB/100+ off the table from fish/losers (as thats the rake at low/mid limits). A SSer may not be taking as much off the table as a winning deep stack player compared individually, but collectively, they are likely taking MUCH more off the tables from fish then people realize. Also, most of SSer's money comes from fish that adjust VERY poorly to shortstacks..... so to say SSers are 'protecting' fish ...

I even shortstack on Monopoly.
FTW!

For most of my posts you've been quoting, I've not been debating the merits of banning short stacking, but strictly the point that SSers protect the fish.

Also I have no reason to lie about shortstacking/fullstacking, though I did appreciate the irony as I wrote your quoted line that I would seem to be one of those people. Again, I think it goes to your misperception that I was defending SSing in the quoted posts (though I'm not anti-SS) as opposed to just correcting one particular point I think is untrue.

This was the point of my post though. It seems most on here are saying most SSers are, small losers, Breakeven or small winners. So most of the money they are taking from the fish is going to FT (with a portion going back to them as rakeback).

So again I ask, are the people that expect to start winning more when Shortstacks are gone simply going to make the money that would have gone to FT as rake? Can you think of any reason it would make sense for Full Tilt to make these changes if that was the case?

Or will the fish start losing more money when the Shortstacks are gone, in which case it was the SSers protecting the fish.

Unless I'm missing something, the possibilites are the people in this thread don't make more money when the SSers are banned, the regs make more money and Full Tilt loses money (makes less money if you prefer) or the regs make more money and the fish lose more money (Some mix of the last two is possible as well).

Again I'm not particularly commenting on if any of this has anything to do with whether banning Shortstackers is a good idea or not. Just disputing the people who are saying SSers don't protect the fish.

You're the ones that panic and whine. You can't win the shorties on your own so you want the sites to ban them lol losers.

If fulltilt raise the min buyin stars will take the shorties, if stars does it too there are tons of other networks/sites out there for the shorties to play on.

All fulltilt will do with this retarted decision is lose money.

Disgusting if that is true......taking us players for fools....................

I understand that, and the main reason for quoting you was because you brought up interesting discussion points. I have no reason not to believe you, but I do not believe many claiming to buy in full that defend/support SSing are telling the truth.

I think many full stack players that are not anti-SSer group SSers and fish together (as many fish often have 20-50bb) in the same 'shortstacker' category. When they do this, they think SSers are 'usually' bad (because they group the fish in that category). If they are a true shortstacker following a chart (which most do) they mathematically can't be bad vs full stack players as they have the inherent advantage vs deep stacks. You will be lucky to break even vs them, especially factoring in the rake. On top of this, you had to adjust to sub-optimal play, because of their presence.


I disagree with you about this. Only the pokersites have the full data on whether full stacks or SSers take more from fish, but this SSer protection theory is pretty silly. If a SSer breaks even, he is taking 3-4BB+ off the table (from the fish). The poker site still gets its 3-4BB in rake, which means fish had to pay an 'extra' 3-4BB, because the SSer was able to break even. Now multiply the number of shortackers by 2, 3, etc per table and see the affect they have. Most SSers also play 16-24 tables, yes some Fullstacks do as well, but the far majority do not. This is not protection.

Most full stack regulars adjust decently to SSers, and most fish definetely do not. Fish that adjust poorly are losing even more than 3-4BB to SSers. It is too easy to read a chart and break even (and take 3-4BB off the table), which dries up the games by taking more money from fish, which the game is built around. You can't let a loophole in the sites software allow someone to look at a chart and and take 3-4BB off the table. If you take the skill element out of poker, and allow the SSers to take over, the game will dry up as nobody will be able to make anything after the high rake.

Also, as to your question about whether the fish will lose more money if the shortstacks are gone... the fish should lose less. Look at the bolded lines above, you say the SSers are taking money from the fish, but yet the fish should lose MORE when the SSers leave, why? SSers are currently taking 3-4BB off the table... if they are replaced by a 'random' player, on average, a random player is NOT breaking even or better. Remember, the HUGE majority of players lose, even those 'trying' very hard to win. The only thing that is happening is a crapload of players that were taking 3-4BB off the table are gone, and is highly unlikely they will be replaced by players taking that much or more off the table, on average. Thus, full stack players win, fish win, FTP wins (most fish don't get rakeback) and most importantly, skill wins.

FTP will not lose unless it spreads considerably few games then it currently does, and there is no reason to think it will. In the short-term they might lose some rake, but I think they will make much more long-term. Many players will come to FTP to play given the changes (I plan on switching to FTP). Also, many SSers will start buying in for higher amounts, or move to CAP games or another game. Lastly, with the SSers gone, the pots will be bigger on average, giving FTP higher rake. Full stack players tighten up and raise to lower amounts with SSers in the game.

A better way to look at this point, is what is better for FTP, the players, and the longevity of the game. If players lose interest in the game because of the infestation of SSers, you can't rake tables that don't exist. Full tilt has an interest in spreading a fair game, that is accepted by the player base, and is good for the longevity of the game (which helps their long-term bottom line as well).

When FTP, like any business makes changes they don't alway think short-sighted (although many do). I think FTP realizes, as do most of the poker community, that the ability to churn out more and more SSers breaking even off of a chart and flooding the games is terrible for the long-term health of poker. This affects the viability of being able to spread the game in a couple years, which could hurt poker players, and FTP's bottom line considerably.

If nothing is done, the game will end up drying up much quicker than it would have otherwise. Lets face it, deep stack players don't like playing with SSers, fish don't like playing with SSers, hell... even SSers don't like playing with other SSers. That right there shows you the longevity of a game filled with SSers.

ROTFLMAO..........................

Are you ppl retarted? You should be joining forces with the shorties and demand lower rake not trying to ban certain play style...

Whats next? You cant have vpip below 30? Seriously the biggest reason you'll are losing money is the freaking rake...

Just look at how much money these big sites make, tens of millions, that's all your money. Rake takes 50-100% of everyone's winnings.

If you want to pressure sites to do something, thats the issue you should press. Even better then arguing on forums would be to support sites with lower rake or lower costs in general. The only way these clowns will learn is when they lose your business.

That the main problem with FT upcoming change.
Dont know about you, but I rather play a shortstacker, pro or not than a 16tabling Poker ace hud rakebackpro specialist.
And these players are many times also sitting with too generous "under the table deals"...

There are already too many of these players at the sites.

Another thing with 50BB tables, I dont know whether its good or bad, but it prevents people with Tilt tendencies to regain losses in an "easy" way on the bigger table because he or she wont be able to afford the bigger buyin.

I would definitely think that this kind of stake control is bad for the games.

Fulltilt should do what ipoker plans to do jan 1, classify players as sharks or fish and ban the sharks. LOL @ some of these poker sites man its like they're run by greedy monkeys.

Yeh, but FullTilt is a poker site.
Ipoker is a decease....

The games there has been horrible for a long time for a number of reasons:

1, Under the table deals
2, Under the table rakeback
3, Vip upgrades
4, big rakeraces, mostly suited for 16tabling PA-hud nits who play 17hours/day an average day
5, They havent done and refuse to do anything about the bots and other cheatos
6, The shortstackers on that network is actually a problem, but they are only playing there because of the other 5 reasons already mentioned.

You raise some interesting points, and I don't think either of can know for sure or atleast prove 100% that we are right.

I still think the fish are going to get picked off more easily by the regs, much of the hate towards Shorties has been directed at them removing some moves (3-betting, isolating, ect) from the fullstacks. They wouldn't want to do these moves if they didn't think they were going to make them more money against these fish.

I'm focusing more on the money the people in this thread think they will win when the shorties are banned. That money has to come from somewhere and it seems to me it either has to come from the fish or Full Tilt, since I think a good portion of shorties were making money just from Rakeback.

It is possible more of that money than I think will come from FT (the lost rake from the Breakeven shortstackers), and FT thinks its worth losing this for the extra players they'll gain, long term health of their site, ect. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Regardless it's nice to see someone in these threads actually make reasoned and civil arguments (you aren't the only one, just one of the few, and I'm not neccessarily saying all my posts fit into that category).

It's amazing how doing that can make the person you are debating with consider your points and maybe reconsider their position (even if only a little).

the reason ipoker has to do this is derived from the competition between skins, which is resulting in more money being taken out of the games; FT doesnt have this problem being a standalone network....

However, Ipoker is also going to a contributed rake system(not in a traditional definition, but effectively the same result) which will help solve the sser infestation on the network.

Oh yeah getting the players back some of their lost winnings due to the huge 5% rake is a problem. Do you realise that a "small" 5% rake takes 50-100% of your winnings?

So your solution is to offer less to players or in other words increase the rake?

Are you listening to yourself? So how hi do you want the rake? Hell lets make it 20% then we will get super soft games right?

Yes competition is exactly why they're doing it. The big sites titan,willhill don't want to compete with the smaller skins and lower their profit by giving better deals.

So they used their power and said f this competition thing, f the market we'll legislate the smaller skins out of existence.

What they don't get or refuse to get is that the players can and will leave and so will the smaller skins. Maybe they'll even form an ipoker of their own.

As a winning fullring player my rakeback will prolly fall by 50% with the new system, only benefit will be to loser lags with vpip over 30-40%. Why should I stay on ipoker? Screw you guys there are tons of sites out there.

And you think that the players in these five group are the only one having problem with the 5% rake?????

A network set up like Ipoker is bound to collaps after some time.
The playing conditions between each player groups is just too unfair.

I do agree that neither of us can know for sure without more data that the sites have, and even then, much of the data would just be based on assumptions.

I think everyone will benefit, except obviously SSers. I think fullstacks WILL win more from fish, and part of that is because of what you mentioned (being able to isolate more, 3-bet more, etc.). I also think the fish will end up the same or better off. My reasoning is what I stated in my previous post. I don't think break even SSers will be replaced by players that do better than break even, on average. So basically that random player that replaces a SSer at the table will give back to both fullstackers and fish more than what the SSers do currently. All the data shows that the far majority of players are losers.

In the short-term, I think FTP may lose some money in rake from fewer tables spread and take that hit, because they are making a long-term decision. I do think this will pay off for them, and it does take time for players to realize FTP doesn't have SSers and move their play there. It really depends how well they advertise the move, and how fast the general player base takes to find out about it (as I think the far majority of poker players would be happy to hear it). I think FTP will definetely gain rake in the mid to long-term from the move.

Shortstacking is basically cheating by finding a loophole and taking advantage of it until you can't any longer, and i'm sure it won't be around much longer. You can't have a group of players print out a chart and instantly be able to break even in a game of skill where 90% lose, because they found a flaw in the system. That is bad for the long-term health of the game. If you take the skill out of poker what do you have left?