this conversation likely won't change that opinion.

cant f'n wait to listen to this tonight, great lineup!!

Thanks for addressing our questions to jungleman. I like how subtle you were when asking him whether he thinks the challenge will take too long.

The perks of online poker - millions of $ and appearing on the pokercast.......

Sorry I was unclear with my post. I meant Chewy and Jungleman. I only said "...last 2 interviews..." because I was mid way through it

Steve was good it just sounded like he was running/out of breath

Mike and Adam: How much research did you do with respect to PS buyin changes?

I found you interview with PS Steve underwhelming.

- " Recreational players did not like the double up and leave." - How did PS come to that conclusion - did they do a survey or did they just assume that?

- What was said at the PCA meeting between PS representatives and SNE shortstackers?
- Why did they wait until February for the change - when PS VIP reward schemes are annual?

- Was there a change in the distribution of winners with the introduction of 20-50bb tables from what was there prior to the changes in 2010?

- What % of tables were 20-50bb tables of total cash games @ NLHE?

- Why did they not extend the changes to Omaha?

There was/is so much discussion in the ZOO on these topics..........I mean when you guys werent even sure as to why SSers rathole in the first place - you have to wonder if you did sufficient background for this interview.
Not to be harsh - but these a huge changes to the largest sites cash game structure.......and basically Steve was able to put out his standard speel...

downloading now, cant wait to listen to this one.

Thx for listening Digger,

Your post seems to indicate your displeasure with the changes rather than with our research.

Asking about how the process of the changes occurred after they have already occurred seems a bit futile. e.g. Not sure why the % of 20-50bb tables there used to be would matter after they have long since decided to eliminate them. These changes weren't being considered, they were a done deal.

I think Steve made it pretty clear that their research concluded that these changes would be well received by the majority of their players. Only time will tell if the were correct.

You do pose a good question about Omaha. Steve sometimes stops by to read the thread when he has time. If so, I wouldn't be surprised if he addresses some of these.

Love Barry Greenstein's occasional pop-ins and insights.


Cates is just a little young and shy. He'll be just fine with more interview experience in the future.

Mike: whether or not I have displeasure at the changes or not - is irrelevant. FYI - I am indifferent to these changes.

You keep inferring that consensus is that the games are getting tougher..or that that is the consensus of the 2+2 population.

You have PS steve on every week - and you have never thought to pose the question to him.
They likely have definitive data on it.

Many regulars can point to the 20-50bb change in 2010 as having a similiar effect as UIGEA - that many regulars winrates dropped significantly.

Now we have another change - and asking Steve the background of what prompted this change - what was the evidence they used for making the change - might be important to your listeners given that either
If it is true that winrates dropped with the Introduction of 20-50bb
(a) The winrate went from one set of regulars to another
(b) The winrate went to the site via reduced overall winrate via lower effective stacks thus increasing rake as a proportion of turnover

So knowing exactly what happened with the previous changes
Regulars can make judgements about the implication of these changes and judge there potential effect on cashgames in general on Stars for the future.

You cannot believe that the rationale was - we listened to our customers and they wanted the change. That they would not consider the implications on turnover - please.

These are interesting points. I'll admit winrates in SS games aren't an angle I have studied a lot about. You mentioned there are lengthy threads on this in the Internet Poker forum. I'm guessing your questions have already arisen. Have any of the PS reps that post on 2+2 adressed them over there? '

Mike prior to 20-50bb/40bb-100bb/250bb ante structure there was just 20-100bb/50bb-100bb.

Most regulars believe the games got tougher as a result of the change.
Why? There is speculation and conjecture.....PS prolly has definitive data.

20-50bb across all limits it was implemented represented a large % of all tables.

Pokerstars has now choosen to change it again.
Why?
Will that improve the games? Will the games remain the same?

How did the 2010 changes effect turnover?
Do they believe that these changes will effect turnover? If so, why?


Now it might be that Pokerstars - chooses not to answer those questions.
Or maybe they will give very brief answers.

But I think they are important questions to ask.


All of these things might help answer the question of : whether the games are tougher. And if they are, why it might be.

Is it just a bad economy?
Is it a structural problem within the online poker economy?
Is it something particular to PokerStars?
Is it something that Pokerstars can address? or mitigate?

I personally believe that these are important questions that your listeners - particularly online grinders are interested in.
You have one of the representatives of the Worlds largest site on your program.
If I was in your position - those are the questions I would ask.

But its your program and you know your audience - do with it what you will.

Generally PS is very reluctant to talk about these topics.
(a) They do not want to be seen to be taking sides.
(b) They, perhaps rightly, believe this is proprietary information.

Yes, there is alot of discussion on those forums.

It is a very complex debate.

I dont know how many players make a living off PS - but this is a big change - and players I think want to have as much information about the reasons for the changes as possible.
Knowing why the changes took place.
Knowing or confirming what actually took place in the poker economy of 20-50bb tables - might help poker professionals gain an insight as to the health of their games and what these changes might have on their livelihood.

One theory that floats about:

20bb-100bb were removed because of the inherent advantage SSer had over Fullstackers - by leveraging stacksize to create Fold Equity over the bottom of FSers ranges.

But SSer represented a significant part of PS turnover - and so PS, rightly or wrongly, decided that playing 20bb poker is a choice - we have a customer base that like to play it....so lets create a 20-50bb structure and a 40-100bb structure and then both set of regulars will be happy.

Because 20bb SSer theory - says that that is close to the optimal stack size to play - they still 'ratholed' upon doubling up.

Now PS introduced in 20-100bb structure a 'cooling off' period for ratholers - to attempt to mitigate their strategy prior to introducing 20-50bb poker. I think it is 1 hour.

When they introduced the change to 20-50bb poker and 40-100bb poker - what happened is that 20-50bb boomed.
There is conjecture why?
Was it because recreational players preferred lower max buyins -
This was put forward by SSers - that it was an active and consious choice by recreational players to play 20-50bb poker.
or
The recreational players were indiscriminate about their choice - they just sat down wherever and because 20-50bb poker had more tables - they tended to land on those tables more often which made those games more attractive which kept them going longer and attracting some 100bb regulars to playing 50bb poker - which was a virtuous circle effect on 20-50bb popularity....
AND
because of the ratholing provision - there is an inherent driver to create more tables - because SSer tend to be more volume driven players relying on rakeback as a greater % of total return - thus the ratholing provision was causing the creation of more 20-50bb tables and at a regular rate.


Now depending upon what is the actual cause - will likely determine the effect on overall game quality of 40-100bb poker and the viability of CAP games.

There might be a large decline in overall turnover for stars if CAP games are not viable relative to 20-50bb games - i.e. pro SSers drop out because games are no longer as good. That might be a good thing for FS regulars but not good for PS.
or CAP games are very popular and then there would be a definitive trend towards shorter and shorter stack poker - which has very large implications for poker in general.


So - I think there is alot we need to know imo......because these changes are huge imo.

B is very much the case.

i am part the way in...can not believe that the media or the police (effectively both) released the name of someone in a case that implicated the person that was arrested. This is like way bad and whoever did it should be sacked IMO.

cool story but.

yeah, I completely agree. why the hell would anyone come forward if this is what happens?

disclaimer: I really hate law enforcement and recently grew a beard.

I usually listen to the podcast, but specifically tuned in this week to hear the discussion about the cash game changes, which I FULLY support and think was a good, 'no brainer' move for several reasons. The main reason, which I think is common sense and doesn't require any research, is that NLHE was becoming an unenjoyable game. No one likes to be shoved on AND hit and run. No one likes that: not full stackers, not fish, not casual players, not pros, not semi-pros, not shortstackers, and not even other ratholers. No one wants to play a bunch of players who ONLY play that style. Yet several players set-up shop day-in and day-out and did just that because "it wasn't against the rules". And, many people were brainwashed by that idea: because it wasn't explicitly against the rules, it was 'ok' to angleshoot and exploit a system to do something it wasn't designed to do. Now, the party is over and a game has been specifically added around that idea that you can take your money off the table, only it's not called '50bb max NLHE' or '20bb - 100bb NLHE' ... it's called what it REALLY is ... 20bb CAP.

Tomorrow, players who want to play NLHE can actually play NLHE. Players who really want to get shoved in for 20bb's can play THAT game. We finally have what we've been asking for for years: two distinct, well-defined sandboxes. As Steve said in the interview, players now have two well defined choices. Another great change in this announcement is the new labels. Ratholers have been capitalizing on the popularity of NLHE to play a different game and now they will have to stand on their own two feet with their 'CAP' label ... and if you bring up the idea that CAP tables get their own lobby away from NLHE, ratholers go bezerk

Anyway, I'm really looking forward to tomorrow and I just wanted to echo my thoughts and the thoughts of MANY others who may not post it specifically here that we LOVE this overdue change ... I'm in the better late than never camp

I you guys, too!

I think that was Sklansky.

Props to the Artie Lange reference today!
Hope he is doing well! Miss him on Howard!

The Tallest Man on Earth, amazing. That is all.

While I think generally Mr. Brooks could have been held anonymous until trial given the rumored mob connections to the cranberrykid, the accused does have the Constitutional right to face his accusers, so it's not like the evidence can be submitted without him being cross-examined for credibility. He would have to testify in Court to the existence of the e-mail exchange at the very least (to prove in Court that the police didn't just make up the e-mails).

A court case is a court case and that's months down the path.

I think a witness has a right to some degree of protection before the case comes to court...witness intimidation could easily be a factor here.

Also...BTW...I'm surprised on the amount of hate for Mr. Brrooks in these forums. I think he deserves a rather better reception...from posters, the police and the Bellagio.

His name is Haseeb, not Haseem. Seems like (from his blog) that he got the bad end of the deal in more ways than one though, if he's willing to come back on the show I think it would be a fascinating interview!