suspicious pokerstars shortstackers data

[Bottled Rockets]

VPIP converges *quickly*. Winrate, much slower.

El D is right to be curious about separately pooled VPIP/PFRs for the different stakes. Results will be interesting, either way (whether they're playing formulaicly ignoring the different game conditions -- or adjusting to the different player bases).

There are like 8 of these 17/8 accounts (all shortstacking, 6000-10000 hands per month, et cetera et cetera) listed in this thread. WAY too many similarities for them to come about through parallel evolution instead by one exact same process (presumably one human mind with or without computer assistance).

[Bottled Rockets]

Also, there was a big thread in High Stakes (or maybe Medium) Limit last month about a bunch of 6max Party bots. It's all happening [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Big Dave D]

Im sure the intelligence to write a bot and chose PLO are probably mutually exclusive.

gl

dd

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]

There are like 8 of these 17/8 accounts (all shortstacking, 6000-10000 hands per month, et cetera et cetera) listed in this thread. WAY too many similarities for them to come about through parallel evolution instead by one exact same process (presumably one human mind with or without computer assistance).

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse the ignorance of how bots work, but does the human open Stars and their bot program and then choose a game? What do they do after this game is running? Watch it, let it run and go get coffee/walk the dog/gay chat with other bot owners?

Whats the highest number of bots at one table? Is it possible that a table ends up with all bots? And at some point, if there are too many bots, wouldn't it be less profitable?

[TxRedMan]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not know what win rate all of you get playing full stack. I do know that I used to do very well playing full stack for a while, but the games got tougher (as games tend to do) and my rate went down (not negative, just down). Along with that, I also experienced pretty large fluctuations (which tend to be masked when your win rate is also very high).

So I switched to a strategy that (1) inherently has lower fluctuations, and (2) allows me to play more tables at the same time at a level of skill close to my best, which further reduces my fluctations.

I cannot disagree with whoever posted that there is a structural problem with allowing short buyins. The solutions are to raise the minimum, to increase the length of time after which you are allowed to resit with the minimum, or to create a subset of tables with a higher minimum. But that is up to PS, not me, and I think it is in poor taste to flame me for trying to earn some money while playing within the rules that PS has established.

There are lots of people doing datamining and/or using HUDs, which is NOT within the rules PS has established. IMHO, your efforts would be better spent railing against those practices.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hi Joel,

I've played with you before when I was playing on Stars. I noticed that you always were shortstacked, and considered why that would be. After reading your post, I now understand even better. I've read some parts from Rolf's book, and I think that book was detrimental to the game. I don't like playing with shortstacks, b/c I have a larger advantage against deep stacks, as will most players who play PLO well. I don't blame you for this problem, and if I were in your position I would play the same way.


Although it's been a few months since I've played online, I'm going to write a letter to stars asking them to accomodate the players who wish to play deep stack poker. Personally, I'd like to see tables with a minimum buy in of 100 BB's with a maximum of 500 BB's. So, if you want to play 5-10 you have to sit with $1,000 or you can sit with up to $5,000. I think that this would make for an extremely fun and profitable game for someone like me, and a lot of other players here. It would also attract a lot of shot takers and poor players who like to gamble.


I've got you as 2.4 ptBB's/100 over 1400 hands or so. That's pretty impressive if you're playing 6 tables 10 hours a day. What's that, about 2500 hands/day or about $300/day? nice way to make six figures, sir.


I do think that BluffThis! makes a good point though, and i will only echo it b/c it is worth considering; if the structure changed, your win rate would likely drop significantly. You might want to work on your 100BB PLO game.


*edit*

I think it is unethical to double up and then sit out and then re-sit at the same table with the same players. You could never do this in a live game and I think it is an egregious error on poker stars part to allow this at all, to any extent.




-Tex

[Big Dave D]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that this would make for an extremely fun and profitable game for someone like me

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is good for Stars how? It seems to me, and not necessarily putting yourself quite in that camp Tex, that a lot of the big stackers here are a bit flat earthist. The game is what it is. The chances of Stars constructing a game just to suit you winning players to the detriment of the fish pool, which its worth remembering has shrunk considerably, is pretty unlikely. Then again Stars have acted pretty stupid before, so who knows.

gl

dd

[BluffTHIS!]

Dave,

Notice that we are talking about raising the min buyin to 40bb. That STILL is catering to the shortstackers, but not as much as before and not where they now can't make a mistake in overplaying AA. Catering to Tx or myself would being requiring a max buyin from everyone of 100bb, not just making the reasonable change to a min of 40bb.

And how is it good for stars that 4 or 5 of these tight short stack queers are being catered to? Again as I have previously said, they are not saving fish from dumping when taking shots, because such players don't account for much shortstacking. The 4 players whose stats pete gave, plus a couple other similar ones, account for the lion's share at least at 600/1K/2K that I notice.

[RoundTower]

I'd like to see a list of Stars' top 10 rakers in PLO.

All of you who think writing a letter to Stars will do anything, are you on it?

[Big Dave D]

Bluff,

Well that was not what Tex was asking for. I think people like yourself have let the shortstackers annoy you more than they are worth. As you have just said, there are only 3 or 4 of them that are any good. When I had a PLO dabble, there were clearly some who were short stacking but very badly. Of course they are spoiling your enjoyment of the game and probably making somewhat of a dent to your winrates. But. Are they bad for the game itself? Sure if a lot of them sit down at once, but if 4 or 5 tight normal stack players sat down at once then the same would be true. Do they hurt or scare off the fish? Im not sure that they do. I suspect that they find them a minor annoyance at worst. And maybe, just a thought, the shortstackers prevent them for being isolated, and maybe actually help the fish live longer.



gl

bdd

[morphball]

LOL, I don't care how much you make, you are a parasite and you know it. That is all. Wow you rathole for ten hours a day, your wife must be so proud. Let me guess, you tried accounting out but had to leave because it was too exciting.