The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in

[jack frost]

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

[APerfect10]

Default Buyin: 100 BB
Minimum Buyin: 40 BB

[terrellk11]

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.

[justscott]

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.

[otctrader]

[ 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?

[Willy]

[ 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.

[MicroBob]

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?

[1p0kerboy]

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?

[eleventy]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

[oober]

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.