|
|
#51
05-04-2007, 02:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Would a shorstack boycott on PS work?
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you guys never hate on the 200-400 game which is always full of short stackers. I guess because you all never play it and it doesnt affect you but the highest limits are full of them. Right now 200-400 6 max is running on full tilt with 5/6 having less than half a buy in and 2 with 8000. [/ QUOTE ] The future of online cash game poker, 25bb average stacks. 
|
|
#52
05-04-2007, 02:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would a shorstack boycott on PS work?
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you guys never hate on the 200-400 game which is always full of short stackers. I guess because you all never play it and it doesnt affect you but the highest limits are full of them. Right now 200-400 6 max is running on full tilt with 5/6 having less than half a buy in and 2 with 8000. [/ QUOTE ] Also a lot of them are 2+2ers, KingNeo comes to mind. He was NMDynasty I think on Full Tilt. Everyone in BBV was saying he was so cool etc when he doubled up a few times vs Ivey. People are just selfish.
|
|
#53
05-04-2007, 05:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would a shorstack boycott on PS work?
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you guys never hate on the 200-400 game which is always full of short stackers. I guess because you all never play it and it doesnt affect you but the highest limits are full of them. Right now 200-400 6 max is running on full tilt with 5/6 having less than half a buy in and 2 with 8000. [/ QUOTE ] I don't play 25/50 or nosebleed stakes, but I think no one complains because they're two entirely different scenarios. The ppl shortstacking 25/50 are for the most part regulars and thus in the games day in and day out. They tend to actually have a decent short stack strategy. This strategy just happens to disrupt the game by tightening it up. This is what everyone is complaining about. The shortstackers at 50/100+ are more often than not some donk taking a shot with his entire roll. Obviously they're probably pretty terrible poker players and once they bust they're gone. They are probably largely insignificant to how those games play long term. The other thing to consider is there are essentially only a few regulars at those nosebleed stakes and I'm sure most of those players welcome some donk willing to play them for any amount. It encourages other people to take shots and can lead to more and more people playing the games.
|
|
#55
05-04-2007, 11:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would a shorstack boycott on PS work?
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you guys never hate on the 200-400 game which is always full of short stackers. I guess because you all never play it and it doesnt affect you but the highest limits are full of them. Right now 200-400 6 max is running on full tilt with 5/6 having less than half a buy in and 2 with 8000. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think anyone has much of a problem with someone buying in for 3k or something at 25/50. Also, Grimstarr talks [censored] to Geoff7878 which probably has something to do with that guy being a shortie. Why would we hate on 200/400 if we aren't playing it? This is a matter of personal preference for high stakes 2p2ers, most of whom play 25/50 and nothing higher. It's democracy, and we certainly have the leverage to change things if we do it correctly. We are the ones building profit and making huge monetary transfers. Why do you think they fight for our membership with rakeback and FPP-type programs? It's [censored] ridiculous that they haven't done something about this already, but then again maybe it isn't because poker players are so selfish and lazy they are pretty unlikely to be able to hold something like a boycott together just to defeat shortstackers. While they keep the game from being what it should and I will never have much respect for them, we are pretty much at the whim of Stars here. The difference is, since the player pool at 200/400 is so small, a couple players there would have plenty of leverage as well, all they'd have to do is e-mail FTP for a receptive ear.
|
|
#56
05-04-2007, 04:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would a shorstack boycott on PS work?
they fight for high volume players not high stakes
high stakes players are an enormous expense and liablility to online poker sites between enormous transaction fee's for 5 and 6 figure cash moves and the staff needed to watch the games for collusion and other security related matters why don't you guys understand that sites don't really think you're special while you all think you're their most important customers?
|
|
#57
05-04-2007, 04:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would a shorstack boycott on PS work?
what all these morons want is for the fish to buy in full.. thats it. They have had it so good for so long and their profit margins are falling they feel like its "unfair" for them to have to change their game to win
They dont give a crap about all the fish who are in an unfair position because they are worse players and are easily exploitable, but when its them that are easily exploitable they are crying non stop Full tilt gave them deeep tables, and what happened? no one played on there Why? because only the ones who want to play super deep were sitting, so it was shark on shark action.. so this excuse about wanting to play deep is [censored], they just want to have another path towards easy money Its not about "disrepecting the game" its about disrespecting their winrate, and when that gets cut, they are surely going to start crying Just figure out a way to use the shorties to your advantage rather then following some cookbook greenstein words and then you can ravage the fish that are deep, AND the pros that dont have a clue how to play the shortstack
|
|
#60
05-04-2007, 05:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Would a shorstack boycott on PS work?
High stakes players are pretty important. One high stakes multi-tabling regular at 25-50 will pay as much rake as many many many lower stakes recreational players. One of the limit guys posted he had payed 282,000 in rake just since he had been playing 100-200+. You have to be pretty important.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
