ratholers unite

[bigballz]

[ QUOTE ]
why not play SNGs if you like shoving with 10 big blinds?

[/ QUOTE ]
dumbest thing i've ever ever ever heard

[ImsaKidd]

[ QUOTE ]
How about there are two kinds of tables:
a) max BI 20BB, min BI 10BB
b) max BI 100BB, min BI 50BB


[/ QUOTE ]

Stupidest idea ever.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my argument would be only that both tags and fish like playing more hands (this is part of why live games are uncapped, imo), and shortstacks disable them from doing that.

[/ QUOTE ]

What people want to do and the best business decision for stars are 2 totally different things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, not quite. If people's desires are great enough for change, that demand will be met elsewhere and stars will lose business. Obviously this isn't the case here, but this is silly if you mean it for anything other than this particular instance.

Either way - why are live NL games uncapped? Wouldn't it be better business practice to cap them? Mason Malmuth argues that's why No Limit would never become popular.

But they are run uncapped at the higher limits, because people like to play with as much cash as they like, and people like playing hands.

[SmokeyRidesAgain]

[ QUOTE ]
How about there are two kinds of tables:
a) max BI 20BB, min BI 10BB
b) max BI 200BB, min BI 50BB


[/ QUOTE ]
That'd be awesome and hilarious, I wonder if anyone would play the 20bb tables though when all they are up against is other shortstacking tards.

[Tony Skaloni]

40bb's is the new double stack... didn't anyone get the memo?

[Janis N.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about there are two kinds of tables:
a) max BI 20BB, min BI 10BB
b) max BI 200BB, min BI 50BB


[/ QUOTE ]
That'd be awesome and hilarious, I wonder if anyone would play the 20bb tables though when all they are up against is other shortstacking tards.

[/ QUOTE ]Well they can strive to be the best shortstacker with the most game theory optimal pushing strategies; I'm sure it would be great fun for them. Also the fish allegedly all love 20BB and shortstackers and therefore will join those tables in droves.

I think it would be only fair - tables for people who cannot play more than one or two streets of poker and tables for people who can actually play real poker.

[costanza_g]

How about stars just makes the time before you can buy in for 20bb again about 3 hours.

[Stinger88]

Pete makes good arguments from a purely business perspective, but driving out good full-stack players is [censored] ridiculous. Why not just add blackjack instead to satisfy the fishes' gamble, it'll be more more fun than playing push/fold poker.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not just add blackjack instead to satisfy the fishes' gamble, it'll be more more fun than playing push/fold poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

cuz chris moneymaker doesn't play blackjack on tv

[ImsaKidd]

[ QUOTE ]
Pete makes good arguments from a purely business perspective, but driving out good full-stack players is [censored] ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont understand what you're arguing here. If the best business decision for stars also ends up driving away the best fullstack players, that is unfortunate for those players, but ends up being in stars best interests, right?