+1

- 1

Antes is good for creating action, and doesn't reward nitty play as much as std tables.

Very good post..

In this case the grinders are the *loudest* and *best* customers, since they know the most about the game and pay the most rake.

it seems like ante games are gonna happen, but for selfish reasons i didnt want them. I always liked them on FT, mainly cause i only play like 6 tables max when i played on FT, but playing more tables i think its bit tricky having ante games in as well.

massively selfish reasons there, but if they do make ante games hopefully they wont take over from std ones

Hi!

Please Mr. Business, explain how adding shallow tables would be bad for PS in the short or long run. In the short run, raising the minimum buy-in and not adding shallow tables would cause a lot of shortstackers and casual players who prefer playing short to move to FTP or some other site with a smaller minimum. A few grinders might move to PS from other sites, but most mass-tablers are already there because of the VIP program. It wouldn't be close to the number or shortstackers and casual players they would lose. In the long run, bad players would lose money slower on shallow tables than if they had to play deeper which would keep them in action longer.


One multi-tabler pays more rake than one casual player who plays one or a few tables, but the player base consists of a lot more casual players. Looking through the FTP lobby, shallow tables have similar (maybe even slightly higher) average pot sizes on PLO tables at every limit except 0.01/0.02 and 0.02/0.05 (which could be an aberration because there are only a few shallow tables running at those limits) because people stack off a lot lighter shallow.

I'm pretty sure Stars knows exactly what the breakdown is.

Yes.... Joe Multi-Tabler pays more in absolute $ rake than Steve McGuppy. But that's not the only variable.

The distribution of Joes vs. Steves is very important.

Keeping Steve McGuppy around longer so he can pay more rake is also very important.

Also multi-tabler Joe needs Steve McGuppy around, but not vice-versa.

First of all, casual players dont move because of those changes. They would play smaller. There is a thread in NVG where a casual player explains how he decides which games to play and what annoys him the most.

Shortstacks are a big rake contributer, but they are also a huge pain in the ass for most regular players who are the major contributers. Given that more and more casual players get replaced by decent regulars, it would not be smart to make the fastest growing group of players unhappy.

Repetition is not proof.

Yes, this please. Ratholers are much more annoying then then a "normal" short stacks ...

true, but i just didnt want to say it

I agree. Shortstacks are also hated by the very same action players drawn to PLO in the first place.

As much as the good PLO players hate the shortstacks, it pretty much sucks for the action players who want to mix it up a little bit to have a shortie pot up a bunch of limping preflop and then the action player either has to play mostly committed to the pot before the flop or, if they make a bad call against a shorty with a premium pf hand and win, they get berated and called a fish.

Some would move and some would play smaller. The ones that move would pay PS no rake, and the ones that play smaller would pay PS less rake.

Bad players also love to see flops before putting their money in...something that shortstackers make very painful.

Actually thinking about it I do kind ofagree with wazz about antes. Adding antes to PLO is kind of like having a shot of espresso whilst already on speed.

OK, I've seen this "play smaller" thing mentioned over and over.

So, if I read that correctly, the guys playing PLO500 don't care if *their* short stackers move down to PLO200. As long as they're not in "our game".

And the PLO200 guys don't care if *their* shortstackers move down to PLO100. As long as they're not in "our game".

That's just pushing a problem around, not solving it. (If you even think it's a problem that needs solving. I'm not convinced it is).

No, this isn't NLHE.

Edit: your post didn't even have anything to do with people who want to play shallow tables.

This is kind of a circular argument really, right?

Deep tables = fish go broke really quickly, and then it's just regs v regs and the games become unsustainable and rubbish.

Shallow tables = rake eats up everyone's win rate due to smaller potsize, fish play correctly shipping with weak hands, eventually the games become unsustainable and rubbish.

And I know that people are saying that 100bb NLHE is close to being a 'solved game', but then chequers and backgammon are solved games too and people still play them.

In summary, I'm not really sure what I'm saying at all. Basically that we should all play limit o8, I think.

+100000

If there are going to be shallow cap tables, please something more in the 80BB range than 40BBs.

Yeah. Shallow PLO doesn't really help the 'poker is a game of skill' argument. Might as well play roulette.

100bb nlhe is not a 'solved game'

i have actually solved this and if you want to be part of a group who gets my system and backs me to play just pm me

Well obviously not solved in the game theoretical sense. but a lot of people these days play close to optimally. You know what I meant!