There has already been 3 massive threads with the same people saying the same thing. Just answer the poll and give some input on whether the rake should be adjusted for the lower buy in games as the OP suggested.

What criteria are you using for table selection that yields these results?

I dont like this solution
Its the same s*** of today only the smell its different.

FTP already show what is the best solution.

im interested in knowing ur criteria for table selection too. i know that if u check the table finder on PTR for ex// 100nl 6max for both stars and ftp it will show that ftp has waaaaay more soft tables. also i know exactly wat u mean about the waitlists. i play only 50bb min tables on stars and most of the time its a long ass wait. stars vip program is just too good tho... which means ive gotta suffer a few inconveniences to play there

Correct, the anti-SS brigade are pushing for CAP tables because they know that the fish won't play at those. They are worried that fish would continue to play 20-40bb or 20-50bb tables in large numbers.

I will say there is nothing more annoying then logging on to Stars and every somewhat decent 50BB min table has like 3-9 guys on the waiting list

this

Nah, they want CAP because that is what SSers play. I don't think FSers are scared of 20-40bb just like tilt, they'd be fine with it, CAP just seems more appropriate because you guys like to reset to 20bbs (aka ratholing)

You needn't worry about being 'ratholed' at your 40bb min tables, but If people want to leave short tables when they double up whats the problem? Its no longer the case that they''ll be using a so called 'inexploitable edge versus deepstacks' since everybody at the table will be buying in short.

You do realize that ratholing (resetting to 20bb), will still work when more than one person has bought into the table for 40bb, right?

Nevertheless...I couldn't care less if it is a 30bb cap or 20-40bb. The cap makes more sense as it will produce tables where no one is getting an edge at the table by buying in for a shorter amount than others (as well as eliminating ratholing)...but I won't be playing them, and the rest of the player base will finally get to choose what kind of game they want to play.

jmillerdls wins this thread. His arguments are clear as day. I said it in the other thread and I'll say it here, this is not a hard concept to grasp and makes me wonder if PS has anyone on staff that knows anything about poker.

It's either that or making money (witch actually will not be affected) is the only thing that matters to them and it should be noted. If the simple fix is not implemented then everyone has to move to FTP.

If you don't move there will be no repercussion for not fixing it. As it is right now PS can probably take this line and not fix anything. It would be their best plan if no one moves.

There will be no longer any deepstacked regs at the tables, i.e the players that claim they are being unfairly exploited/ratholed by shortstackers.

Fish aren't going to be exploited because of some 'mathematical loophole' in the game, they're going to be exploited because they make so many mistakes, same way as they lose their money to you.

That said, I still play the shallow tables at FT and do not leave the table when I double up because the games are just too loose and juicy. If the games are anything as good on stars I probably won't be 'ratholing' them either.

Right, I won't be at the tables...like I said...I don't care. However, spreading lies about it is ridiculous. Fish will be exploited by BOTH. Not one or the other. If multiple fish buyin for 40bb while the ssers are buying in and ratholing at 20bb, they will be exploiting the mathematical loophole...whether they do it intentionally or not.

dude there is tables with 50 bb minimum , you can turn off the shortstaking tables from the filter . When you don`t like shortstack just turn off from the filter and play on 50 bb minimum tables. What`s the problem ?>

Go look in the other thread..this has been very clearly explained...over and over.

Jmiller pretty much pwning the thread with reasoned answers.

I'm sorry but thats a ridiculous arguement.

If I outskill someone I expect to make money from them no matter if the effective stacks are 20bb or 100bb, and obviously at a faster rate the deeper we are. They're not giving up an edge to me because we're playing 20bb effective, they're losing less.

Also if you're really concerned about levelling the playing field for the fish you should email stars and ask them to ban HUDs, trackers, tableninja etc etc.

I don't care about them leveling the play field for fish...I care about people exploiting an edge that is based purely on their stack size.

Just because you are "outskilling," someone, does not mean that you don't still have an inherent edge. You don't seem to understand that you have the edge whether you are effectively using it or not. It doesn't matter how good or bad you play...the edge is there. I don't care about the edge you get from being better...I care about the edge you get from the stack size differential.

If this were a heads-up table, then what you are saying would be right...but it isn't, and that is where the crux of the issue is...and why a change is needed asap.

More people wanting changes should argue that those changes won't adversely affect Pokerstars business, or if you believe your proposal will hurt Pokerstars' income, state why they should make the changes anyway.

It should hurt their business if they don't fix it. Especially now that there is a major competitor that serves the U.S. that has.

The players should also make that clear and stick to it if they don't fix this simple issue. Like I said in my post above, if they don't and there is no repercussion, then they would be foolish to change anything. If they do they might lose some business from non U.S. short stackers but they will gain players from FTP/Cake/etc. Most of the U.S. ss'ers will adjust or play the minimum tables.

I think they have more to lose if they don't fix this, at least they should. Remember, FTP has fixed this issue. FTP is a major site, that also serves Americans. Most people that want to play full stack poker that are still playing on PS are there because 1. They are stuck in a rewards program. 2. They believe PS will fix this. 3. They have never tried FTP and are may be loyal.

The only issue I see in switching is for those who can't get rakeback at FTP. Two things here: it may be better to play at FTP with no RB but a much higher winrate and 2. If FTP solved this by giving an unlimited bonus (they have 10k boni's atm) then this would kill pokerstars grasp on these players and it would truly boil down to them fixing this flaw. To all those that have rb at ftp and are playing at ps now, it would serve you well to make the move if the problem isn't fixed very soon.

i hear u loud and clear but rb on ftp or even a massive bonus on ftp cant compare to vip program on stars. winning players should be able to beat regs as well (unless u bumhunt hu) so stars 50bb min tables are still worth it to play on. the only reason im in here advocating for change is because the 50bb min tables are DRYING UP. so many players have moved to ftp that i basically play the same couple of regs on all my tables all day long. no competent fullstacker is going to play at a table full of shorties UNLESS theres a giant whale at the table donating so i cant even compensate by adding in standard tables. the few 50bb min tables that are running have waitlists up the a s s now too. stars can just look at their own lobby and see something needs to be done

You only care about levelling the playing field in a way that doesn't effect your own winrate, you're being hypoctritical.

Even if that what you said were true it would make a very thin arguement; clutching at straws I would say. The inherent edge you gain from using a hud deep vs a fish far outweighs any 'inherent edge' a short stack is going to have on a table where all the stack sizes are relatively close and the majority of money comes from outplaying fish rather than using a
stacksize to exploit them.

I get it you have a problem with shortstacks because you feel they have an advantage that you don't have (at deep tables), but you have no problem with using a hud to gain an advantage over a fish that doesn't have one.

It isn't something I feel...it is something that is clearly true and has been demonstrated in this thread quite clearly. All your rambling about huds is completely irrelevant to this thread.

Demonstrated against deep stacks maybe, but you're making a pretty bad arguement in the context of shallow games. Also the HUD example is completely relevant but you don't want to hear about it because anything that gives you an edge isn't up for debate.

You said at deep tables and that was what I was responding to (note the part I highlighted).

If you want to get HUDs banned, start your own thread. This thread is about short stacking.