Hi tuff_fish.

I believe it when I wrote it


nope....raising the min buyin affects all the players
by eliminating the competent shortstack, the fullstack good player can now use a fuller array of his tools to hurt the fish. The competent shortstack protects the fish whether the fish buys in for the minimum or maximum. Shortstacks are preserving good game selection. You should all just be saying, "Thank you. I'm glad you are protecting fish so that they don't quickly realize how bad they suck" and so on. Alas, I understand your line of reasoning and the mental blocks that stand in the way of such an acknowledgment. Oh well....so it goes.

lol

You wrote in another thread that many of the good short-stackers are winning as much as the good full-stackers. Obviously this would have to be true for players like you and Imsakid to be shortstacking in the first place.

How on Earth are you protecting the fish by taking just as much money FROM THEM as a fullstaker does?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Your statements are full of contradictions, this just being one of them.

that's so -EV for the site...cause we'd just play 3 sites at once if we wanted to 12 table instead of 12 on "their" site.

Tilt won't let me 16 table, so I play 8 on tilt 8 on stars...they're just losing business and not slowing down how many tables I'm playing.

it isn't a contradiction

there is a solution to that riddle.
It alters the assumptions most have about poker, though, so it can be tough to see. Kind of like the riddle with the patient's doctor being his mother.

fish generally don't give a [censored] how big the stacks they're facing are....I don't see your point at all

Also if it's not clear, shorstacks ruin the games because they alter the whole way the game is played, turning it from a fun strategic game into a mindless preflop game. I definitely think they're the main reason why the big games on FT have dried up. Everytime a non-HU game forms 2 or 3 shortstacks quickly join and then the game becomes mindless, boring, and a waste of time for good players, so they leave. I applaud Stars and DN for taking this first step and hopefully it'll trickle down to all limits.

What???!!!

MT2R,

It seems a bit hypocritical to act as if you are holding the flag for keeping the games good by making sure the fish don't go bust, but then accusing people on the other side of the argument of being completely self-interested.

i think the soln to the riddle is:

The fish's ego/bad logic is protected. Good players shortstack, I shortstack, hence, I am not doing anything wrong by flushing 1k @ 25/50 where it represents 1/2 of all my poker monies. That's monies that would never make it into the 25/50 economy post 50 bb's. Apply same for $400 @ 10/20 and $200 @ 5/10.

don't really care, since i don't play stakes where i could care. i just like to guess.

so fish takes his 1k to 10/20 instead. it's the same people.

its not just 1 guy.

1.) he takes his 1k to 10/20 instead
2.) the $400 guy takes his to 3/6 since he can't quite make 5/10 min buy-in
3.) the $200 guy can't get in above 2/4

its less monies @ the higher stakes.

myturn2raise, you're being a hypocrite and your argument about preserving fish is a false one that you've artificially invented (though you may have deluded yourself into believing it by now).

The fact that you have the stomach to play the brain-dead version of poker that shortstacking is without puking obviously gives you a competitive advantage. I've tried once and could not believe how lame and boring it was.

But shortstackers make the games less fun for everyone else (including the fish who'd rather see flops than call your all-ins all the time).

Banning shortstacking would not change the rate at which fish go broke.

There will always be super-turbo SNGs for people like you who are too lazy to play deep-stack; just remember to fold the first few orbits.

And QFT: