Shortstacking Issue on PS

TOC
0. Disclaimer
1. Separating the BOLD issues
2. An Axiomatic View
3. The GS Axiom
4. The case for GS+: Rejecting X based solutions
5. Re-examining BOLD issues under GS+
6. The case for 50-100 to replace 40-100
7. PLO
8. Summary and Conclusion


---
Disclaimer
I cannot indicate what PS agrees or disagrees with, so I will only give my recommendations. The opinions here are mine and mine alone, and do not represent PS, their policies, and do not necessarily represent community consensus. In particular I expect this will be an opinion that will be particularily negatively recieved, but that needs to be said. This opinion has been heard by PS, but not necessarily acted on in any way, they make the sole decision and I have not received any indications as to what they will decide.

Also I do not play any cash games currently. In the past I have played 1/2 and 2/4 for a million or so hands 100bb+.

Note that this view mostly encompasses NLH shortstacking. PLO is a different game with more complicated issues, which I discuss near the end.


---
Separating the BOLD issues

The issues must be separated for a legitimate discussion of the shortstacking issue at large. They are the issues of BOLD: barrier, offering, leech, and disruption. There are four separate issues in play.

Barrier: The fact that in order to play a shorter stack, one must consistently rathole.
Offering: What buyin (in bb) PS should offer.
Leech: The fact that shorter stacks have an advantage over bigger stacks.
Disruption: The fact that excessive ratholing causes a disruption to the game.

I’ll discuss these issues briefly below:

(Leech) Many 100bb regs feel dissatisfied because they are generally players of better quality than shortstacking regs. When they play, often their equity is “leeched” by shortstacking regs who have a factual mathematical advantage.

(Barrier) Additionally, 100bb players don’t even have the pure option to play a shorter stack such as in 20bb cap. It has an extra cost -- playing a SS strategy is annoying and involves constant lobby management instead of just focusing on playing hands. Plus, you are looked down on by many players.

(Disruption) Consistent ratholing implies that one is hit-and-running and leaving tables often; which can annoy recreational players, make them feel cheated, etc.

(Offering) What should the minimum buyin offered by PS be for standard tables?


As I discuss this larger issue of shortstacking, I will make reference to these four issues. It is important to understand that these are four separate issues.

---
An Axiomatic View

In pursuit of a conception of what "fair poker" is, lets look at two axioms on top of the typical rules of holdem that define the ethos of ring games and their structure, and see what issues that may arise.

Axiom 1. You can leave at any time.
Axiom 2. The buyin is fixed*, and you may addon chips up to some maximum if desired. *(For example, you are not required to reload if short)

When we look at these two axioms in isolation, they already create a structure that is subsceptible to disruptions naturally. Here are three such examples. In these examples I've purposely stuck to 100bb games so that people may view these arguments more rationally instead of as positive or negative depending on their rootedness to their desired resolution of the issue.

Example 1. Joe plays 6max PLO and everyone buys in 100bb. He double up as well as a player to his left. For game conditions or otherwise, he decides that he is now no longer +EV in this game. He decides to leave.

Example 2. Joe has $500 and starts playing two tables of 1/2 NL. He loses $300 on one table but gains $300 on another table, so now he has one table with $500 on it. Now he wants to play two tables, so he decides to leave.

Example 3. Joe plays 1/2 NL and Alice and Bob go all in. Alice had $12 more to start the hand, but she lost. In the subsequent hand, she has $12 or 6bb infront of her. It is Joe's BB next, and because Alice has an advantage that would affect him most negatively, he decides to leave.

Note that online poker presents unique challenges due to the highly liquid environment, because it is very easy for any player to decide to make a new table if he has a poor game condition. However, in actual practice, regulars will always sit as long as a recreational player does, and recreational players do not care that much about EV and are not willing to sit new tables if they are disadvantaged.

Anyways, the two axioms in isolation are not enough. In order to define "fair poker", you must resolve something that I will call the "Going South" axiom.


---
The GS Axiom

Axiom 3 (GS+). You may go south. (“New Buyin” or “Cash Chips” at the table)
OR
Axiom 3 (GS-). You may not go south. (Current system)

In live poker, you are not allowed to take chips off the table. In zoom poker, you are. It depends on the resolution of the GS axiom. This axiom is independent. If you are mathematically inclined, you might compare it to the parallel postulate. If you accept it, you get Euclidean geometry. If you reject it, you get hyperbolic or spherical geometries. When discussing the shortstacking issue, I realized it boiled down to something very fundamental that we have to decide about how online poker should be played.

Note that in the examples where Joe was going to leave, he was going to do so anyways, and we agree that the ethos of ring games finds this behavior acceptable. All that remains is to determine our resolution to the following question:

Joe decides to leave a table. When he does, what tables is he allowed to choose to sit in at that do not restrict his buyin?

1. All tables (Zoom poker model - suited for highly liquid environments) He may sit at his very same table, or any other table, and buyin for the same amounts as allowed by any other player.

2. Other tables (Standard model - suited for low liquidity environments) He may sit at other tables for the typical buyin. However, if he chooses to sit at the same table, it must be for the same amount that he left with.

3. No tables (Home game or “barrier” model - no liquidity) Any table he chooses to sit at must be for the same amount he left with.

The fundamental difference is that I believe in online poker, players should be allowed to go south. Note that this doesn’t mean that I believe this to be the case about live poker. But that online poker has fundamental differences in terms of anonymity and liquidity among other reasons, that encourages this to be true.


---
The case for GS+: rejecting X based solutions

As we have discussed, players have the right under the first axiom to leave the table at any time, and additionally that game conditions can necessitate that a player leaves the table naturally through no fault of his own. Thus, the value is not so much in preventing “leaving the table” which cannot be avoided and occurs naturally, but rather, whether a barrier is created in joining a table.

At standard tables, the barrier is created in the “here” portion (trying to sit down at the same table), but not in the “there” portion (sitting down at other tables.) Some people want to go towards “nowhere” -- that based on some conditions or otherwise, that you can’t sit for a new stack anywhere. One must legitimately ask the question, why an arbitrary barrier? For example, if 9 players want to sit for the min at a new table, why is this not allowed, or would not be allowed under various anti-ratholing schemes that prevent joining a table? Additionally, why can you not sit for the minimum at a new table, (or even at a table you were just at), but a new player is allowed to?

Based on the data that I have seen during PS meetings, I believe a significant number of recreational players like to buyin short, play short, and even rathole if not short. Additionally, I have expressed the viewpoint before these meetings that if a 50bb and 100bb game were placed side by side, 100bb would take the minority of the action. I believe the experiment has mostly been done already -- compare “deep ante” games with standard tables today. Also, we know intrinsically based on the rejection of “min 100bb” solutions that recreational players by and large like to play short.

That is why some people want an “X based rule” that somehow keeps all the pro shortstackers out but keeps the recreational players in. For example, you can only rathole X times a day, then you must buy in for more. I believe that this task is basically impossible no matter what X is. Either X is too big and you just have more regs playing less often, or X is too small and you significantly damage the ability for recreational players to play. Other X based rules are similar. Note also that refusing recreational action is very detrimental because often 4 or 5 regs sit for every recreational player, so a small amount of recs sitting in influences games a lot more than one would think.

It is instructive to imagine a world with X based anti-ratholing rules. Many players think that such a world involves a majority of 100bb regs while 40bb players are mostly curbed; weeded out and now out of the way. In reality shortstacking becomes a better deal because of the artificial barriers to entry in the market. It causes more players of worse quality to continue to shortstack. The average number of shortstackers at each table remains the same.

---
Re-examining BOLD issues under GS+

The BOLD issues can be re-imagined under GS+:

Barrier: There is no barrier. You may “New Buyin” at any time as if you had stood up and a new player (actually you) had took your place. Remember, people will leave if they were going to. The only question is, should there be a barrier. GS+ says no, and it is motivated strongly by the highly liquid environment we are working in.

Offerings: 100bb is very ingrained into our culture -- eg. .50/1.00 is known as “NL100.” But in reality, a 40-100 game is an “NL40” game in the following theoretical sense: it is correct for every player to buy-in for the minimum. In practice, it is correct more or less for every player to buy-in to cover the fish. This is an important realization: one playing .5/1 is not playing a 100bb game, but rather a (theoretically) 40bb game “suboptimally.” Regs buying in for 100bb just didn’t need to mind until now. Another important point is the following: at deep tables, does anyone complain at people that only buy in for 100bb? Even though they have an advantage over a 250bb field.

Leech: With increased liquidity, players no longer face a leech problem; they can new buyin when they feel it is appropriate to maintain their EV at the table. Except of course, in the case where some player has less than the minimum buyin and has an advantage. Unfortunately this is unavoidable in almost all forms of cash poker, basically due to Axiom 2.

Disruption: Players do not need to leave the table to split stacks (legitimate for a recreational player with low bankroll), or to be able to sit for the stack they want to sit for, which means less leaving.

---
The case for 50-100 to replace 40-100

People do jam 40bb over a raise and some calls (whether correct or not, which is another discussion), but generally doesn’t happen with 50bb. I believe 20bb and 50bb are different niches, where 20bb players do not mind frequent preflop all ins, but 50bb players want to play the flop much more. Also, 20bb and 50bb offerings compliments FTPs 35bb offerings quite nicely. Based on this, I think PS should offer 50-100 games.

Additionally, as I mentioned in the meeting discussion, I think PS should offer 20bb cap at all limits as a complement for players who want to buy in for less. (They currently only offer it for .25/.50+)

---
PLO

Shortstacking exists at all games and leech is still a problem -- even in LHE. There exists no clear solutions longterm for leech. PLO is a separate topic that is much less established than NLH offerings. PLO regs need to decide for themselves what directions the games should go. One can either go with a “one game” approach or a “two game” approach (one cap game + one normal game.) Of course deep tables should still be offered. I offer no suggestion for fixing PLO in terms of offerings (“30-100 vs what?”) as I don’t believe I have enough understanding to recommend one solution over another. I recommend that PLO regs discuss publicly what solutions seem to be the best as far as structures offered goes, and maybe even conduct an informal vote in their respective threads.

---
Conclusion

In the end, it all comes down to what recreational players want. They want to play short. Anti-ratholing measures basically will only create barriers for recs to play short (bad) or create extra incentives for shortstacking (shortstacking is harder, so it is more profitable to do so, which means eg. SNG regs with SNE might start occasional shortstacking, etc. -- reaching equilibrium.)

We’ve seen this because out of several “solutions” proffered for ratholing, all of them have alarming false positive rates. I believe strongly that a significant number of recreational players like to buyin short, play short, and even rathole if not short.

The “solution” to shortstacking is to make the minimum buyin 100bb. But we already have that -- its called deep ante tables. The cure is worse than the disease.

The better approach is to affirm GS+ and allow any player to “go south.” This approach removes all barriers and lets the market operate efficiently. This has many advantages.

First, shortstacking regs won’t be in excess -- many of them earn most of their money from the “leech” and will eventually get weeded out due to pro players being able to play 50bb more consistently and driving them away.

Secondly, winrates for 100bb regs that are currently depressed due to leech will return, due to leech not being an operant condition on the market.

Thirdly, recreational players will enjoy themselves better. Just like how vegas has slot machines at 98% instead of 85% payout, the goal is to get recreational players to keep playing (where they will eventually lose it all) -- not to butcher them 100bb deep where they don't come back. GS+ rules will accommodate those players more and make them happier.

I would like to point out that affirming GS+ is already a condition of Zoom Poker and on PS/FTP that seems to be proven to work.

I would like also to repeat that this does not represent PS views or future policies in any way. Thank you for your time and thank you for reading even if you disagree with my opinion.

^ A post with a TOC.

Nice Alex.

Now, it may be because I'm trying to read this OP while multi-tabling, but I'm having some trouble trying to comprehend the gist behind it because of it's rather "formal" presentation.

I hope I'm wrong, but- as someone who doesn't currently play cash games, and therefore somewhat ignorant of the current dire state of the game- it appears that you have presented rather strong personal views and largely ignored the pessimistic voices of the vast group of experienced and knowledgeable players.

This for example is just so naive and wrong:

"That is why some people want an “X based rule” that somehow keeps all the pro shortstackers out but keeps the recreational players in. For example, you can only rathole X times a day, then you must buy in for more. I believe that this task is basically impossible no matter what X is. Either X is too big and you just have more regs playing less often, or X is too small and you significantly damage the ability for recreational players to play. Other X based rules are similar.

.
.
.

In the end, it all comes down to what recreational players want. They want to play short. Anti-ratholing measures basically will only create barriers for recs to play short."

You were presented prior to your visit with a detailed thread that contained a lot of valuable information and suggestions (as well as the usual crap that gets posted too, but is very easy to sieve through) and as a representative of the Stars playing community that role larger consists of relaying the feelings and opinions of those people, rather than speaking as an individual that isn't an active part of that NLH ring-game group.

If at the end of the day, Stars decide that no changes are going to be made then it will be rather frustrating if that decision is made without representation on behalf of the players who are most knowledgeable in that area.

Hopefully OMGClayDol paid closer attention to what the community was saying, and has a more positive report on this issue.

(if i misinterpreted what you're proposing, please correct me and ignore my rant.)

you seem like a nice guy alex.
first off, thanks for taking the time to fly out to the IOM to rep the players. but i have to say, frankly, if i may do so, that the first thought that pops into my mind after reading this was, 'this is fkn ******ed'.

as a full stack cash reg, on stars solely for years now, this, and i don't think i'm alone, doesn't represent me or my fellow full stacked regs' opinions.

your solution is to let players dump what they've just won at the tables, down to the minimum,while still in his/her seat, without a rat hole timer, and still have a bb that has a mathematical advantage on the larger stacks? is that correct?

'that would make the current situation worse' would be a euphemism.

if i saw a $50 sser win a $40 pot, and take it off the table while remaining in his seat, i'd be fkn pissed. whether it was my money or not. and so would every other reg with a brain. and every recreational player who just missed his or her chance to win their money back from the guy who took it to retain (unbeknownst to him) his super cool stack advantage.

everything is always, 'what the 'rec' wants what the 'rec' wants'... blah blah.. the 'fish' is still trying to figure out how to get the crayon off his computer screen after filling out the poker stars survey. how 'bout the regs that play this game day in and day out payin' 6figs to stars annually. the ones who do understand that these guys are exploiting, not just regs, but recs as well. yes, they (new players) are the reason why this cannibalistic 'economy' thrives. but 'fish' will play. and the money trickles up. they will click the shiny button that puts their money in play and sit at the tables. most are not aware of what a 'bb' is, but if the concern for them is of the utmost, then i would assume making sure some players don't have an inherent mathematical advantage on them is paramount.

... or did i just get leveled?

Excellent, excellent, excellent post.

The "going south" thing is what I would like to focus on. You said that 100BB is ingrained in our culture of the game. That is the going south number. Pure and simple. I've suggested a "100BB CAP" option at the regular tables but the idea hasn't gained any traction (or so I thought). I suggest a button that people could click while at the regular tables and it would top them up to 100BB or bottom them down to 100BB every hand. It should be offered at 100BB and only 100BB. with a forced top up and bottom down. This "going south" thing is essentailly the same idea. People should be allowed to go south because rec. at some point leave the table because they are too deep.

I'd also like to point out a flaw in the thinking I often hear. FLAW..."recs. like to play short." I completely disagree. To put more accurately recs. "don't like to play deep." The two statement aren't the same. All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles. Stop with the "recs. like to play short" incorrect view and understand that recs. actually just "don't like to play deep."

Give them a 100BB CAP or "going south" button. B-U-T it must be based off of the standard game of 100BB "going south". Recs players will eat it up and people will sit down at a table and STAY at that table instead of feeling the need to constantly leave tables after getting deep like you have excellently pointed out. Some of the regulars here want to believe in a fantasy world where the recs./fish dont leave after getting deep, it just isn't true. The recs./fish churn tables a ton because they don't like to play deep. Let them go south above 100BB and stay at your table instead of leaving.

Seriously you could end up with tables full of players with all 6 or 9 seats having 100BB every single hand.

He's not talking about Going South back to 100BB though, he's talking about going all the way to the South Pole of 40BB.

ok.
step one - allow rat holing
step two - keep the math adv.
step three - top players down to 100/50bbs

i would also like to propose that players who have less than 1,000 hands played on stars, should only be allowed to deposit on Tuesdays. and anyone who cashes out on Sundays, are only allowed to be paid in pennies and dimes made in the '70's.

And that is why I put in that the game of poker is ingrained and even called by it's 100BB name.

Alex seemed to imply that PS showed him how much recs. are constantly leaving tables because they don't like to play deep.

It is critical the "going south" number is only for amount above 100BB. If you click this optional menu button it will top you up and bottom you down to 100BB ever hand. He called it a "going south" and in some way could be saying start with anything you want but if you get above a certain amount we will let you "go south". I prefer a 100BB not only going south/bottom down, BUT I think for the right to use this option it requires a manditory top up to 100BB as well. Topping you up is something we already have and takes money from your balance to the table. Bottoming you down would be the new feature, taking money from the table and putting it in your lobby balance, free to be used at other tables.

I didn't want to muddy up my other post but yes the 40BB or even a 50BB number still have a short stacker issue. The number mostly agreed upon in the NLH sub tab was that the min. buy-in needs to be in the 65BB min. buy-in range.

I believe recs. don't like constantly leaving tables when they get deep just to end back on a 10+ person wait list. If they had a option to play 100BB CAP at regular tables a ton of recs/fish would choose this option and be sitting at tables playing and enjoying themselves insted of contantly churning tables when they get deep. This option kills many birds with the same stone, including encouraging people to play 100BB even if the table min. is 65BB. The only people playing 65BB and on a million wait lists will be die hard short stacker desparately trying to make some non-mathematical 65BB SS work.

alex, you keep repeating this line that the 'cure is worse than the disease', but it's false. i see recs playing on the deeps everyday. everyone's different, but most people with $100 want to play $100 poker. not $40 poker. i would say that the 100bb game is the 'standard'. Recs and regs get hit and ran all day long while more and more tables are created. Which definitely skews the data. But recs aren't even cognizant of a stack advantage. if they were, i'm sure they would be as unhappy as the full stacked regs that are.

lady, we agree on some points, but making a top down game is, essentially, putting a limit on 'no limit' poker.

OK, help me out here. I'm confused with how you like the Going South to 40BB option yet you're optimistic that:

"...you could end up with tables full of players with all 6 or 9 seats having exactly 100BB every single hand."

What am I misunderstanding about what you're saying?

-------------------

As far as Going South back to 100BB. My initial thought is that it has some upside, but probably more downside. Either way, it's a relatively minor and relatively unimportant discussion point compared with the short-stacking infestation that we have.

if a canadian goes south will they still be able to play on stars?

solid

I DON'T LIKE GOING SOUTH AT 40BB IT NEEDS TO BE 100BB.

Lets keep it simple. You know the 20BB CAP tables? Well imagine regular tables with a 100BB CAP option that you set before starting play like anything else found on menu options. I'm sure you have used "top up", you lose a few BB one hand and before the next hand starts it tops you back up to 100BB taken from your lobby balance. Welllllllllll if you win a hand anything above 100BB immediately bottoms down to 100BB and is sent to your lobby balance. Every hand it is topping you up or bottoming you down to 100BB stack at the table. This would be like crack cocaine to recs./fish who don't like to play deep after winning a pot or two so they constantly leave tables and end up on long wait list they also don't like. Keep the recs./fish at a tables playing.

And I'm keying off of Alex's post. His post here dealt at least half with rat holing, and leaving tables (barrier and disruption). The going south cure is one point of several of his post unless I'm mistaken. I'm just saying going south at 40BB would be a disaster but going south at 100BB is a huge cure to multiple ills facing online poker today. Plus like I said I focused on the going south not the SS issue in my post. But on a side note, on many of the photos posted in the "40BB" thread, it wasn't a ton of professional SS in all of those photos. Many were just recs./fish buying in for the minimum, I'm suggesting a tempting option for them to buy in for 100BB. And you get like a said, the possibility of tables full of 100BB players.

lol. Look, you don't need to spell it out for me. I understand how "Going South/North" to 100BB works. We are on the same side here, and I don't disagree with what you're saying.

The confusion has come about because you have misunderstood the OP's "Going South" proposal. He is not talking about having an option for players to bottom down to 100BB- he is proposing the ludicrous and disastrous idea of allowing players to bottom down to 40BB!!!

Yes we are on agreement except for you constantrly saying I misunderstand something. Look at my posts as a counter-proposal to his 40BB going south.

We agree. 40BB is stupid. 50BB is almost as stupid. Everyone in other thread put 65BB as bare min to eliminate the mathematical SS edge. Alex as a self described current non-cash player is in a horribad place to be talking about solutions to current short stackers. Alex is in a strange situation of proposing stuff way different than what most even asked for which is damn weird. I read his post and UNDERSTOOD it, I responded with a counter of going south at 100BB. Just stop freaking saying I don't understand something.

lol. Ahhhhh, I have discovered why I was confused by your post. In the first line of your first post, you wrote "Excellent, excellent, excellent post" and I read it as your response to the OP where as in fact you referring to Ricepaw's post. Correct? That makes sense now!

Alex's post is one of the most interesting out of the box post I've ever seen on 2+2. Do I agree with all of it? Nope. But some of the people in the "40BB" thread were saying crazy crap like, "if you leave a table you should have to buy in for that same amount for the next 3 weeks as a rat hole prevent." You seriously think PS is going to greatly curtail how the whole site can play to fix a SS issue better fixed in different ways? Alex's post and examples starts the framework for a serious talk about the pros/cons of rat holing and table leaving.

It is an excellent post on non-short stacking issues facing the game. But you have a burr up your ass about only dealing with SS when in fact I've pointed out that a lot of the people playing the min. aren't your phantom professional short stackers but instead recs./fish buying in for the min.

I'll bet you money that if we investigate ever single photo posted in the "40BB" thread that not even half of those short stacks are pros but instead are recs./fish buying in short. His discussion of rec. players leaving tables because deep is relevant to the discussion. Just not what you want to hear. I think this is a interesting post by Alex other than GETTING THE 40BB SOUTH GOING NUMBER WRONG. Intersting post, interesting ideas, just wrong min at 40BB.

This isn't the short stacking post you wanted but that doesn't mean this stuff isn't part of the solution, especially from Pokerstars point of view.

Here is a quote from Alex.."Based on the data that I have seen during PS meetings, I believe a significant number of recreational players like to buyin short, play short, and even rathole if not short."

The trip report often turns into a question and answer with the player rep. I haven't had a chance to ask Alex if this data he was shown was at PS direction trying to make it clear the recs. are an imprtant part of the problem/solution. You spent too much of my time on a holy war whining that what he did post did not deal with ss rat infestation.

This is one of the most painful reads I've ever had the displeasure of reading. Is there any way you can dull it down a bit for us simple cash game folk? Really hoping the trip report from claydol doesn't have the word axiom in it, whatever that means.

@ladybruin:

The reason I am only wanting to deal with the SS issue is because this thread is solely devoted to that issue. OP has another thread here that deals with all of the other issues if you wish to discuss them:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...ssion-1259393/

My problem with the OP isn't just that it differs from my opinion on the subject. Irregardless of that fact, there are a whole list of points I take issue with, from his total lack of recognition of the opinion of people who know what they're talking about, to his self-speculation in the belief of some basic principles, to the treating of the issue as a "maths problem" and trying to "solve it" by building on those axioms, to presenting his farcical solution based on "logic" rather than actually having a clue as to what's really going on in the game, and the arrogant manner in which the whole process is delivered.

I understand his desire in wanting to be able to present a cohesive argument to Isai, the Head of Pokerstars, but- aside from being mainly nonsense- he has gone way over-the-top in trying to achieve that goal. I mean, seriously, it doesn't read as a trip report, as much as it does a thesis.

Anyway, like I said, I agree with much of what you say and I'm certainy not trying to have a disagreement with you here. I was genuinely confused over what you were saying. I believe we are mostly on the same page but if I'm wrong then just PM me or post in the 40BB thread and we can continue discussing it there rather than taking this thread a little off-topic.

EDIT: I missed responding to a couple of your points:

1. In the SSFR tables that are filled with SSers, I'm quite sure that the minority of seats are taken by recreational players (but as I said above, we can look into that further in the 40BB thread if you so wish)

2. Your comment that you like his Going South idea "other than getting the number wrong" is unfortunately a very major piece of the puzzle- so much so that your version of the model and his version are basically two opposing ideas. (It's like saying "I agree with you completely on the US legal drinking age law and how it protects young people.... apart from the number. I think it should be 14, not 21.")

Jesus what a horrible idea.

I've been playing on stars since 2004, I have put in 1m+ hands this year at the cash games. I have to say, this is a godawful idea. Seriously, you completely ignored everyones suggestion for this garbage? How can you call yourself a rep when your only agenda was to push your own idea? That is not being a rep. A player rep is supposed to represent the players, not your own personal fantasy view. Do you even play in the games anymore?

Also, I am curious what is the "false positive" of limiting the amount of tables you can short buy in at one time to 4-6? How would this effect recreational players in anyway?

+1

i honestly hope stars doesn't take these suggestions seriously.
to ignore what everyone has suggested, and to basically advocate blatant rat holing while you're still at the table... i'm kinda in shock.

sadly, doing nothing would be better than this. and that's hard to achieve with the amount of simple solutions floating around.

a better cash player rep might've been a squirrel or a man made out of plastic cups.

we need to kill this "100bb cap" idea before it lays eggs.

no one is really mad if a fish doubles up and dips.. i mean it sucks.. but it doesn't happen even remotely as often as a sser doubling up and leaving to retain their edge. i get "hit and ran" on by fish deep and short.... and it's quasi-tilting, but that cash isn't leaving the site 99% of the time. the problem isn't "all these fish are winning all the time and leaving!" or "these fish are starting all these new tables!".

really, do some of things need to be typed out?

Anyone have a link to this guy's resume, or whatever info he posted to campaign for this Player Rep position he was voted for? My mind is boggled.