At least in some casinos you have to buy in with the same amount that you left with.

Ratholing sucks and anyone doing it with 108 bbs deserves to be forced to go down in stakes, and finally quit playing altogether.

I think very occasionally it is possible, as the system will do everything it can to generate a hand ASAFP to maximise that rakeage, and if that can only happen by allowing a new entrant to not be in the BB, then so be it. However it is freakishly rare from my experience.

You are right it's unfair. But you quote many things without proof making me question your other statements. Punishing ratholing reduces rake efficiency.

I think stars should get rid of "sit out next BB" tbh. Fairly sure that would solve the issue for the 108bb ratholer. Would increase rake efficiency and apparently make everyone happy.

Surely there is some time limit for this though right? And once that time limit has passed, you are then allowed to rathole.

And what if you are buying in and cashing out with cash, how do they know it's the same person and what your previous stack was?

Ultimately, you can rathole live over some reasonable time horizon or otherwise you would never be able to get your profits off the table for you to spend in the real world.

You actually make your arguments worse as you seem to have a hatred of ratholing and keep bringing that up to cloud your position.

Ratholers do not need punishing as we are all ratholers to differing extents and there is no specific point where ratholing crosses over from being 'ok' to 'not ok'.

It is exactly the same as ''bum hunters need punishing''. All (or at least most) players think they are bum hunters or otherwise why are they playing in a given game?

These are nebulous concepts used to muddy the water and divert topics away from fruitful discussion, whereas issues such as unequal seating distributions are black and white and more productive to try and solve.

Please post stars HH next time. I could be wrong also, but with a quick search I haven't found a thread on 2p2 with proof of this posted. Which should change your Bayesian posterior quite a bit.

My argument is that you are saying things randomly to fit your agenda with no proof. I have nothing against ratholing, just pointing out facts unlike your unsubstantiated claims.

There was no punishment or non-punishment for specific groups, only a few things which they considered when coming up with an algorithm. It appears Stars algorithm has smaller discrepancies than Party, but also Party has more shorthanded and games break more so it's harder to balance.

Anyway, onus is on you to prove that they want to punish certain groups rather than it coming up as a consequence of other things they considered. Onus is also on you to prove all of your other claims, and we can disagree about the importance of fairness in a specific thing.

I can only say from anecdotal evidence that off the top of my head I have sat in a Zoom pool and very occasionally not been in the BB for the first hand, but it is like 1% of the time or less at a guess, and not enough to make up for my large sample size getting shafted overall with a bad seating distribution.

Again, maybe I am misremembering as it was a long time ago, and I don't wish to play another hand of Zoom to find it out. Perhaps others can chime in on this.

Their motivations when designing this are impossible to prove, but it also doesn't matter as their system as is, leads to unfair games, and likely improves their bottom line, as it certainly has hurt the bottom line of regs that are posting big samples with discrepencies, and that money has to have gone somewhere...

I wonder how quick they would be to fix this if it turned out that recreational players were getting bad seat distributions that forced them to bust even faster?

here you go


PokerStars Zoom Hand #230157946546: Hold'em No Limit ($0.50/$1.00) - 2021/09/26 16:20:25 ET
Table 'Triangulum' 6-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: justDgmt ($100 in chips)
Seat 2: Buzzle410 ($28.10 in chips)
Seat 3: Ignacio711 ($101.50 in chips)
Seat 4: AdnanKapi ($356.55 in chips)
Seat 5: ibaCker ($111.77 in chips)
Seat 6: DionV2014 ($81.01 in chips)
Buzzle410: posts small blind $0.50
Ignacio711: posts big blind $1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to justDgmt [Qs 5s]


PokerStars Zoom Hand #230157951698: Hold'em No Limit ($0.50/$1.00) - 2021/09/26 16:20:34 ET
Table 'Triangulum' 6-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: mr.ainschain ($149.93 in chips)
Seat 2: WizardWalrus ($151.46 in chips)
Seat 3: justDgmt ($100 in chips)
Seat 4: DutchCows ($148.21 in chips)
Seat 5: yjh8121 ($346.18 in chips)
Seat 6: kuanysh01 ($36.33 in chips)
WizardWalrus: posts small blind $0.50
justDgmt: posts big blind $1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to justDgmt [9c Tc]



PokerStars Zoom Hand #230157960901: Hold'em No Limit ($0.50/$1.00) - 2021/09/26 16:20:50 ET
Table 'Triangulum' 6-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: Ignacio711 ($100 in chips)
Seat 2: justDgmt ($100 in chips)
Seat 3: GragdaninR ($70.07 in chips)
Seat 4: grossyapro ($123.59 in chips)
Seat 5: quadroq3 ($111.05 in chips)
Seat 6: Cvrlle954 ($95.47 in chips)
justDgmt: posts small blind $0.50
GragdaninR: posts big blind $1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to justDgmt [5d Qs]



PokerStars Zoom Hand #230157966730: Hold'em No Limit ($0.50/$1.00) - 2021/09/26 16:21:00 ET
Table 'Triangulum' 6-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: J.Hopkinz ($128.06 in chips)
Seat 2: BelgianProud ($170.21 in chips)
Seat 3: Minrazor ($101.50 in chips)
Seat 4: shinji1231 ($200.52 in chips)
Seat 5: poker12005 ($124.11 in chips)
Seat 6: justDgmt ($100 in chips)
BelgianProud: posts small blind $0.50
Minrazor: posts big blind $1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to justDgmt [5h 2h]


PokerStars Zoom Hand #230157970112: Hold'em No Limit ($0.50/$1.00) - 2021/09/26 16:21:06 ET
Table 'Triangulum' 6-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: lwolfwhite ($112.38 in chips)
Seat 2: Renous547 ($117.47 in chips)
Seat 3: WizardWalrus ($50.44 in chips)
Seat 4: Innerwuss ($100.68 in chips)
Seat 5: justDgmt ($100 in chips)
Seat 6: eValiukas ($93.98 in chips)
Renous547: posts small blind $0.50
WizardWalrus: posts big blind $1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to justDgmt [8d 8s]

Do you have any proof it’s not happening to recs or is this just an assumption?

and this is the same as leaving and coming back immediately each time you made an 8 big blinds profit at a table how????

It is (partly) just an assumption because that would help increase a site's profits, whereas they would have no gain from giving some regs and recs an advantage over other regs and recs. Although again, there is a benefit to giving bad regs a slight advantage to help them lose slowly, because again their is no line drawn between who is a reg and who is a rec. In reality we are all just poker players.

I say 'partly' though because a rec did post a big losing sample in another thread which showed them gaining a seating distribution advantage, so there is some small amount of evidence supporting what I say, and it is hard to get lots of rec samples for obvious reasons, but then that is what makes this potential fast fold hustle so good as it is hard for the player base of regs to determine what is really happening one way or the other.

Because what if it took you 4 hours to make those 8bb's? Then is it the same?

You seem like someone that is irrationally upset at ratholers, perhaps someone 'ratholed' you once and it has put a bee in your bonnet about it.

We all rathole at some point, and ratholing isn't cheating in any way so it makes no sense to get upset at any level of ratholing.

Why are people upset about ratholers? I really don't get it. Surely what others choose to do with their own big blinds is their business.

it's moreso that it's pathetic to do at 108

bathroom breaks are allowed guys? everytime you take a break you lose ev to someone who doesnt

In my example case, you can rathole the next day (casino is not open 24/7).

But why is it pathetic? It keeps the game consistent for you and allows you to play your 100bb strategies more often.

If you let your stack grow to 150bb's or more, it starts changing things about how you play hands, (or at least it should), and so it just adds unnecessary complications and deviations for your strategy which you are better off simplifying and not dealing with it.

I completely understand and endorse people doing this.

Maybe it is annoying for some strong players that like to build up their stack so that they can own other weaker regs in unfamiliar spots, but just building up their own stack will not suffice, as they need the weaker regs to also build up their stacks too for these spots to become relevant, so it annoys them that they don't get to exploit these kinds of opportunities as much as they like? Still though, each player has a right to maximise their own strategy and more power to them and those players are not being 'pathetic' by doing so.

What if a player comes back and wants to play at a different table against different opponents? Do they have to buy more chips?

Also, what is stopping them from buying $300 of chips at the counter, (because the casino enforces them to purchase that much as that is how much they won earlier in the day), but then as they walk over to the table they keep $100 of chips in their pocket and only plonk $200 of chips down physically on the table and use the chips from their pocket to occasionally top up at the dealer's discretion in between hands should they need to top up?

This gives an advantage to players that piss in a bottle and keep on playing over those that actually stop play and use a proper toilet.

I have 50k hands at 25 and 50NL zoom this year on stars and stats are *very* consistent across all positions.

ofc he's allowed to do it if it's not breaking the rules, but i think if you did a poll of players almost nobody would respect this. That being said it's largely irrelevant to this conversation.

resetting at 108 is also almost completely pointless as the tree is damn near identical to 100 effective, if he did it at 150 or smt it would still be weak but at least it would make sense.

lol


i'm not surprised you cant grasp how having 10Xbbs limits your 5b and 4b shove options

LMAO