The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

This thread is not to debate the shortstacking topic. Please do so somewhere else. This thread is so that we can get an accurate count/idea of how many players want the min buy-in raised.

Many of us believe that no-limit is a game of implied odds and that having shortstackers at the table completely changes the table dynamics and ruins the game.

If you would like to see the minimum buy-in raised, please respond to this thread.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

I did some consulting work for PokerStars about a year ago, and this was one of the major things I asked them to change. At the time, I did get them to agree to change the "default" buyin from 40bb's to 60bb's inside of the NL games. (yes, if you noticed, this was me [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]). I obviously tried to get them to default the games to 100bb's, but considered the small raise a small victory.

At the time, I asked if the opportunity for further raises would be possible, and was told that they would re-evaluate how the games reacted to the change and go forward.

As of this morning, I sent a few e-mails out to the guys who I worked on this with, and will see what kind of information they might have as to the results. I'll be honest though, I'm not very optimistic. The concept of defaulting buyin to 100bb's has very few if any advantages for the site itself.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

Z-

Thanks for replying.

I agree that making the default buy in 100BB would probably be a bad idea.

What I think should happen is the minimum buy-in should be raised to somewhere in the 30-40BB area.

Another option would be to run separarte "cap-games" like Full Tilt has. That way, those who want to play "preflop" poker would still have that option.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

Now that I think about it, didn't FT raise their min buy-in sometime back?

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

[ QUOTE ]
Now that I think about it, didn't FT raise their min buy-in sometime back?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

But if you go bust, you can reload on that table for some insanely low number. Possibly 1bb.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

Actually I stand corrected. You can still buy-in for 20BB at FT.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

I am in for rasing the min buy in for sure. Thx for starting this pokerboy

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

Default Buyin: 100 BB
Minimum Buyin: 40 BB

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

They're never going to default to 100bb . . . just won't happen.

However, I think they may and should raise the minimum to 40bb. I'm all for it.

From their standpoint, this only makes sense. With short-stackers only playing 5% of hands, and many of those being uncalled shoves, they are contributing very little rake compared to most "normal" players.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

oh good, another shortstacking thread so the tards can whine. dont you realize these threads just make more people want to shortstack?

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

I'm just curious why they allow anything less than 100bb to the table. Whats the reasoning? It just annoys everyone. Also maybe they could make seperate tables that you can not buy in short. That would work for me be funny too see all the short stacks playing by themselves.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

I like 20 BBs for 2 reasons:

- Fish that play BAD shorstack strategy can afford to play at my stakes for 20BBs, and most of the ss people I see there fit into this category. If the buy in was raised they would probably decide to play a level down.

- I like having the option to be able to play a ss strategy if I choose. It can be effective given the right conditions and is a good way to get your feet wet at a higher stakes.

So I for one think the 20BB min is fine. 20BB is a fairly standard min buy pretty much everywhere....you should just get used to it.

OTOH I would love to see 200BB max.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

[ QUOTE ]
oh good, another shortstacking thread so the tards can whine. dont you realize these threads just make more people want to shortstack?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely, die already - these threads stink and are directly proportional to the # of shortstackers.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just curious why they allow anything less than 100bb to the table. Whats the reasoning? It just annoys everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's just smart poker economics; the sites have no interest in facilitating the quick transfer of wealth from fish->shark by way of deep stacked NL pots.

In fact if it weren't for the recent televised poker boom, most sites would prefer to only run limit games and tournaments; many b&m establishments still have this mentality. Go talk to the owners of any Florida cardroom - you think they would rather have a geezer splash around chips every night in $5 raked limit pots, or show up one night and lose 100bb's in NL to a set mining nit and have to wait until next month for his social security check?

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

[ QUOTE ]
Default Buyin: 100 BB
Minimum Buyin: 40 BB

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

Even if only 1/3 of the tables required a higher min buy would be great. Everyone would be happy. Put me on the aye list.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

Go ahead and put me on the Who cares list

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

I disagree with this petition. In LA the Max buy in is 20BB (1/2 blinds) for low stakes and 40BB for medium stakes (3/5 blinds). I want to be able to simulate live conditions online. i LIKE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE. Please do not change.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

[ QUOTE ]
I like 20 BBs for 2 reasons:

- Fish that play BAD shorstack strategy can afford to play at my stakes for 20BBs, and most of the ss people I see there fit into this category. If the buy in was raised they would probably decide to play a level down.

- I like having the option to be able to play a ss strategy if I choose. It can be effective given the right conditions and is a good way to get your feet wet at a higher stakes.

So I for one think the 20BB min is fine. 20BB is a fairly standard min buy pretty much everywhere....you should just get used
to it.



[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

"OH NO I CANT ADJUST WAT DO I DO"

Leave it at 20BB so the fish can play high stakes ty.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

Stars should just add some deep tables.

They aint going to mess with the minimum buy-in
Hell they won't even show the cards on an all-in

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Minimum Buyin: 40 BB

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

this is the happy medium IMO
it still allows for under-rolled 'shot-taking'
but, it eliminates the short-stack artists that hurt games

FWIW, Absolute has a min buyin of 40BBs
I'm surprised it isn't the industry standard.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

[ QUOTE ]
"OH NO I CANT ADJUST WAT DO I DO"

Leave it at 20BB so the fish can play high stakes ty.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point.

Adjusting involves the whole table having to tighten up when several shortstackers are in the game.

The games suffer as a result.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

The reason deep stack players don't like short-stack players is because they completely change the dynamics of the table.

I honestly don't mind the casual fish who wants to buy-in cheap and splash around a bit. The reason is not because I make money from these players, but moreso because I don't have to change my strategy because of them.

One aspect of deep-stack no-limit is start building a pot before the flop with hands that extract well after the flop, such as small pairs and suited connectors. But when there are several short-stackers at the table, we obviously can't do this anymore because this is the portion of the strategy they are exploting. The implied odds are gone, and the fact that a shortie is gonna push with a wider range of hands than they usually would causes the loose players to tighten up.

Do you see what is happening here? Essentially the short-stackers are ruining the games because they make a tight preflop strategy right and then we have a nit-fest.

I don't see what would be so terribly wrong with raising the min buy-in to 35-40BB or so. If someone wants to splash around with 20 bucks, let him do so at .25/.50.

No-limit is a game of implied odds. The increasing number of ratholers is hurting the game.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

[ QUOTE ]
The concept of defaulting buyin to 100bb's has very few if any advantages for the site itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this exactly? Is it really just a matter of people going bust too quickly and nothing else?

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

This is a terrible idea. I like to shortstack and bigstack poker. It should be an option totally up to the player. If you taylor the games exactlly the way one group wants it what do you think that does to the other groups? If Pokerstars does this they prolly wont lose my play but I would be greatly disappointed. You need to learn to adapt (hmm another funny idea)

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

I think HUDs and 12 tabling nits are hurting the game...lets ban them too!

(Oh noooo but then what would p0kerboy do for money?!?!?!?!)

When I'm playing deep I hate having more than a few good ss'ers at my table for the reasons you listed, which are absolutely correct. But imo you just have to suck it up and deal with it. Shortstacking is part of NLHE. There is no reason to think that NLHE is a game that should ONLY be played deep. Sure that is how most of us like to play, but there is no reason to infringe on other people's right to play short just so we can be happier and presumably make more money.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is a terrible idea. I like to shortstack and bigstack poker. It should be an option totally up to the player. If you taylor the games exactlly the way one group wants it what do you think that does to the other groups? If Pokerstars does this they prolly wont lose my play but I would be greatly disappointed. You need to learn to adapt (hmm another funny idea)

[/ QUOTE ]

however, they would make a large amount of their player base happy.

Plus, i think the biggest thing for all sites is to entice the fish.

The fish do not like small pots and folding fests.

The fish like big pots and action baby.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

I really don't even care if they raise the min buyin even though I am one of those who occasionally fools around with this short-stacking stuff.
Good luck in your quest though I suppose even though I think it's an over-reaction.

I would like them to make it so that the customer can choose his own default buyin though.
That way I don't have to always be typing over the $60 in the buyin box with my preferred buyin of $20!!

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

I respect you and your opinion. I love reading some of your posts in the other forums, but I disagree. We as players look for large pot tables and what not. But a true fish makes a table a large pot table. I understand about shortstackers it kinda sucks but theres alot more and harder things to adjust too than this? I think it would just discourage the fish to play higher where they arent as skilled. Most people that play a shortstack play it wrong right?

This might be a question for another thread... but do you think if there were tables for max buy in only the avgpots or avg flop would be higher? I would think no but i have no hard evidence. What about you?

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

[ QUOTE ]
Go ahead and put me on the Who cares list

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

[ QUOTE ]
Default Buyin: 100 BB
Minimum Buyin: 40 BB

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

action44 - I completely agree.
In the very least, I don't think the effect is nearly as significant as others are indicating and El Diablo seems to agree with that in the short-stack discussion in his forum.

It really screwes-up and tightens up the game THAT significantly just because there are short-stackers present?
I'm not as experienced as other NL'ers around here so I really AM actually listening I guess.
But when El D (not too shabby a player so I've been told) says that he doesn't think they ruin the game I think others should consider that.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just curious why they allow anything less than 100bb to the table. Whats the reasoning? It just annoys everyone. Also maybe they could make seperate tables that you can not buy in short. That would work for me be funny too see all the short stacks playing by themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
It does not annoy me. BG suggests buying a short stack in many situations and I frequently buy in short.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

Yeah, I'm not sure who this 'everyone' is who is supposedly annoyed by it.

Obviously it annoys quite a few people.
But if there are 1 or 2 who buy-in for short-stacks at a lot of tables then obviously THEY are annoyed by it.

And of the 7 deeper-stack players I suspect there are AT LEAST 1 or 2 who could care less or perhaps even LIKE having them because they believe (sometimes correctly) that they are fishier players who are going to burn through their money.

Naturally when I decide to buy-in for a deeper-stack I'm one of the players who doesn't mind the short-stacks at all.


However, I think I'm going to be in favor of Stars at least setting up deep-stack tables with buy-in ranging from 60BB-200BB or something.
All the, "I can't stand the short-stack players" will go there and I'm not convinced this wouldn't be a GOOD thing for the regular 20BB-100BB tables.

How have the deep-stack tables changed things for the regular-stack tables on FT? Any observations?

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

[ QUOTE ]
In the very least, I don't think the effect is nearly as significant as others are indicating and El Diablo seems to agree with that in the short-stack discussion in his forum.


[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't D play high stakes? He probably doesn't have to deal with this very much at all.

Not to mention that you're arguement that "one player doesn't mind it so it should be okay for all" is a little weird.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

MB

We are reaching the point it is not uncommon to find 3 short-stack players at a 9 player table. These aren't players who are "taking a shot". These are players who are applying the "short-stack strategy" to make money. So now everybody else at the table has to tighten up and the game gets pretty dry.

Also- nobody is talking about making everybody buy in for the whole amount (100BB). Why do you feel that 30 or 40 BB would be so terrible?

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

I don't feel it would be so terrible if they raised the buy-in. I even said this before I believe.
If they wanted to it wouldn't bother me very much at all.


If there are 3 short-stack players on every table then that confirms my argument even more that not EVERYBODY is annoyed by these players. Certainly the players who are doing it themselves don't find it that annoying nor do 100% of the deep-stack players.

This is just not a universal opinion as was stated in an earlier post that EVERYONE hates it.


ElD I believe stated that he does come up against short-stack players and he doesn't think they make that big a difference at all.

All I'm saying is that ElD's opinions on poker and strategy (which would include stuff like, "are short-stack players really awful for the game?") are usually considered to be pretty sharp.
Even if I don't always agree I do tend to listen.
On any strategy related issue where I feel differently than a really good and respected player I usually will consider the likelihood that I'm wrong and they are right.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

[ QUOTE ]
All I'm saying is that ElD's opinions on poker and strategy (which would include stuff like, "are short-stack players really awful for the game?") are usually considered to be pretty sharp.
Even if I don't always agree I do tend to listen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'll have to check this out.

Re: The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in
 

It appears he wouldn't be in total disagreement with your petition since he certainly prefers deep-stack poker too.
Just that he isn't as far into the camp of "OMG!! They're ruining the games" that some appear to be.
I'm just interpreting here and obviously am not speaking for ElD.


Here's what he said in the ElD thread about this:

"Thing is, 20bb is the minimum, that's the game that's being played online, not some implicit 100bb game. There is absolutely nothing unethical or wrong about sitting w/ 20bb. I don't care about these guys at all. Anyone is welcome to do it. Those who complain often don't because doing that means giving up on your opportunity to cover other players, so you increase earn in some situations, but decrease earn in others. There is also nothing unethical about hit and running. Yes, it is annoying as all and frustrates the hell out of me when this little dinky short stacks hit and run. But when they go all-in three times and lose, I like it. I don't see these guys as having an advantage over me. I just adjust my game to this situation like I would to any other. Of course, it's not the game I prefer to play, but then again, 100bb isn't a game I really like to play either. When I play, I'm balancing what I want to play with what is most profitable and usually landing somewhere in the middle."