The petition to PokerStars to raise the min buy-in

[Rainbow Warrior]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

[cwar]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

[MicroBob]

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.

[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]

[ 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.

[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?

[MicroBob]

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.

[1p0kerboy]

[ 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.

[MicroBob]

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."