Stars: A Day Without Shortstacking Ratholers

[BluffTHIS!]

Maybe some of you have seen the movie, "A Day Without Mexicans", where all the Mexican immigrant workers, both legal and otherwise, didn't show up for work, to make the anglos see how much the economy depended on them. So I am going to borrow that concept for this post about shortstacking ratholers, with however, the observation that the main difference is that poker games aren't helped by and don't depend on, those dumb ratholing mother [censored].

This topic has come up a few times in the past months, especially in the first thread noted below:

suspicious pokerstars shortstackers data

Shortstackers update

Shortstack ratholing PLO


Now the shortstackers I am talking about here aren't your randoms that come and go, but the multi-tabling regulars. I can only generally speak to the ones that played the 3/6 blind and up PLO games on stars like eva, joel, coco, oskar, etc., but have seen here mentioned by players from lower levels others who frequent those levels. And the ones whose niks I give above as mentioned in pete's thread above (the 1st link), also played a wide range from the mid-levels to the highest ones.

But now, lo and behold, they are ALL gone the past week, at least on 3/6+, and from a cursory inspection of the mid-stakes lists, the 1/2 and 2/4 stars PLO games as well (maybe some posters who play .5/1 to 2/4 can speak to this better). The question is, what happened to them? Personally I wouldn't be sad to learn that they all were at a short stack convention and the place burned down with them in it. And maybe the answer is just that they're all college students on spring break, though it's late for that now. But even in a case like that, we are talking about both american and euro players all gone at the exact same time. Have they found greener pastures to short stack? Or is there another explanation?

In the second link above, the question is asked how they were adapting to the 6-max games once stars put them in place. beset noted that he had an email convo with stars which, as they have in the past on this matter, refused to make the reasonable change to upping the min buyin in big bet games from 20bb to 40bb+ (I say reasonable because even at 40-50bb they are STILL being catered to at the expense of those of us who wish to play full stack poker, but just not as much as before). From my observations, those short stack guys didn't like 6-max but soon decided they had no choice and jumped in (and no doubt they all shared Rolf's disdain for same as shown in his book where he characterizes 6-max as a "virus").

But now, as I note above, they have vanished. Is it only temporary or is there a deeper reason? I suspect that there *might* be. And that suspicion is that they were all using bot software to play a buttload of tables at once, and that stars finally figured out same. I realize that it's hard to prove botting when the botter is actually behind the computer to answer popups, and that AHK quick reload scripts used by legit players can give the appearance when it isn't warranted. But the disappearance of all of them at once is kind of odd to say the least.

I would be interested on hearing from mid-stakes players about shortstackers there other than the ones I mentioned above who played both mid-stakes and higher stakes levels, and whether they have noticed the same there, assuming they had their own mid-stakes short stack regulars which I'm sure is true from both what I have read here, and also seen when perusing lists of levels I don't actualy play. Maybe even joelmick, that legend-in-his-own-shortstacking-mind who posted in pete's thread, will deign to comment here.

Are they all just on spring break? Did they all just realize at the same time that the extra blind and rake costs of 6-max harmed their EV too much? Or were they all indeed botting scum? Inquiring minds (well this one at least) want to know.


P.S. I haven't been following the forums as much the past month, so if this has actually been discussed elsewhere and I missed it, hence making this long-winded post unecessary, then someone please point out same.

[LA_Price]

I have them all turning a profit in hands that I've played with them last month, which was mostly 6-max. Of course they wouldn't if people would just never give them action and do things like raise their blind a lot and fold to their reraises.

I think it's probably just a coincidence that they are all gone, and that they are all on vacation this week. I don't actually think they were bots either. One of the reasons being that they came out right after Rolf's book, which wouldn't have been enough time to write a "bot" program.

I actually don't think the short stacking is unethical at all, it just requires some strategy adjustments. The ratholing is a rather bad practice though. I think if stars is petitioned for anything it should be longer times before you can come back to the table and buyin for 20BB's. I do have to admit that the games have been much better for me without them.

Just for fun here's a hand I thought was funny.

POKERSTARS GAME #9023974650: OMAHA POT LIMIT ($5/$10) - 2007/03/21 - 22:32:30 (ET)
Table 'Alpheratz' 9-max Seat #9 is the button
Seat 1: evaFunk ($200 in chips)
Seat 2: joelmick ($282 in chips)
Seat 4: Hero ($782.75 in chips)
Seat 5: xoxol73 ($962.50 in chips)
Seat 6: blisterfish4 ($645.40 in chips)
Seat 7: howardsegel ($647 in chips)
Seat 8: Darwinism ($7065.95 in chips)
Seat 9: TimeOut71 ($307 in chips)
evaFunk: posts small blind $5
joelmick: posts big blind $10
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [Ah As 5d 8h]
Hero: calls $10
xoxol73: folds
blisterfish4: folds
howardsegel: folds
Darwinism: folds
TimeOut71: folds
evaFunk: folds
joelmick: raises $25 to $35
Hero: raises $75 to $110
joelmick: calls $75
*** FLOP *** [6s 3s Td]
joelmick: checks
Hero: bets $222
joelmick: calls $172 and is all-in
*** TURN *** [6s 3s Td] [Ts]
*** RIVER *** [6s 3s Td Ts] [8s]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
joelmick: shows [Ks Qs 9s Jd] (a flush, King high)
Hero: mucks hand
joelmick collected $566 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $569 | Rake $3
Board [6s 3s Td Ts 8s]
Seat 1: evaFunk (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 2: joelmick (big blind) showed [Ks Qs 9s Jd] and won ($566) with a flush, King high
Seat 4: Hero mucked [Ah As 5d 8h]
Seat 5: xoxol73 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: blisterfish4 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 7: howardsegel folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: Darwinism folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: TimeOut71 (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's probably just a coincidence that they are all gone, and that they are all on vacation this week. I don't actually think they were bots either. One of the reasons being that they came out right after Rolf's book, which wouldn't have been enough time to write a "bot" program.

[/ QUOTE ]


LA,

It's a mighty damn big "coincidence" when both US and euroland short stackers all disappear toghether. What are they doing? Did they all go to the same place on vacation? Rolf having a seminar? I mean they're ALL gone! And hopefully for good. You would think at least one of them would be glad to play without the others since the action should be better. Nothing like two or three of them on a 6-max table to screw the action down tight.

Regarding the not having enough time to write a bot, it just isn't that hard. They buy a pre-canned bot program and then make their own rules. For the tightest that's just AA and KK hands. But with 6-max they *should* play a wider range which is shown by joel's hand above, where they basically decide to chuck it allin with any 4 cards 9+ with at least one suit.

Besides botting, another possible explanation is that one or more of them is doing a ZeeJustin and getting away with not only mulitple accounts, but also sitting at the same table with same.

Again, I just think it odd that they all disappear at once. Also the fact that some of them play a lot of hours would indicate that all of them aren't college students and thus wouldn't be taking spring break at the same time.

[fnord_too]

BT,

Thanks for the heads up. I will fill the shortstacking gap for you now that the rest of those bastards have quit flooding the market.

Regards,

fnord

[LA_Price]

BluffThis,

Have you ever written a computer program? They are incrediably complicated and tedious especially one that would have some artifical intelligence involved. It took my brother(who was probably one of the best programmers in his class) and entire year working in a team to write a program that could play connect 4. I find it hard to believe that in a matter of weeks that someone could come out with a successful bot program, especially people who don't even seem to understand the very strategy they are using. I think it's that their strategy is fixed and thus seems bot like. As showcased in the hand posted they don't even know how to combat their own strategy. I think they just read rolf's book and memorized the hand examples and match it as closely as they can to ones that they play. But when they come to a hand that isn't like one in the book they don't know what the [censored] to do.

As to the vacation thing, a lot of people that aren't students go on vacation this time of year so I don't think it's that unusual that 4 poker players are on vacation.

[fnord_too]

LA,

On a serious note, I think the raise in your hand was pretty dubious. I am also not sure about the reraise on your part. I would have to do more math than I have to determine that. Since these guys like to reraise, I would have popped it straight away an hoped to have 3-bet in your spot. Also, I think mini-raising (2-3 depending on how exactly deep they are) is pretty brutal in a six max game, especially if they SS'er doesn't really understand where the profit from what he is doing comes from, and I really think most don't (at least at the levels I have played).

[BluffTHIS!]

LA,

I have actually written a fair amount of code years ago in Pascal and C and understand the difficulties involved in *starting from scratch*. But what I am talking about isn't like that. It's just like the difference between a knowledgeable hacker and a mere script kiddie. Most players out there using bots are buying a well-known program to use, and then inputting their own rules. And that rule set doesn't have to be intricate at all for a short stack, because it's basically just raise/reraise pre and shove/call on the flop, all based on preflop values and no postflop considerations.

As to the vacation or not thing, we'll see in short order I would imagine. Also, at least for the 3/6 blind and up, it's more like 6 short stackers and not 4 (eva, oskar, coco, joel, superboy, and some recent guy Henrico). And as I mentioned there is apparently a different set for the mid and lower levels, although I'm not familiar with them which is why I hope some players from those levels chime in.

[LA_Price]

fnord,

actually the short stackers would reraise an early position raise almost never, so if you raise initially thinking that they are going to reraise you, it's going to happen very very rarely. I initially raise sometimes, but not because I think anyone is going to reraise me. It's part of a balanced game strategy to keep people guessing. Sometimes limp reraise, sometimes limp and call a raise, sometimes raise initially with the percentage of each depend on game conditions, stack sizes, relative postition, etc. Not limp-reraising joelmick in that spot would be a mistake as he's basically raised himself out of the pot. He can call but it's wrong to do so especially as I'm pretty certain joelmick would not raise in his spot if he had aces or kings. I know this because I read rolf's book too and I know that he advises not to raise in this spot if you have AAxx or KKxx. So considering the fact that I probably have AAxx, KKxx, or a hand like AKQJ when i limp reraise his call of the reraise is pretty bad. But there's no hand examples in rolf's book that talk about what to do when you are the one that gets reraised he becomes just a bad a player as the ones he does it too.

[fnord_too]

I would argue with those stacks there is no hand he should be raising with from the blinds there (against one limper). Also, I did not really notice this was 1. 9 handed and 2. you were UTG (at a 9 handed table).

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course they wouldn't if people would just never give them action and do things like raise their blind a lot and fold to their reraises.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much just not true. Shortstackers are parasites that take advantage of a structural element of the game. The only way to "counter" them is to pretend that you are also a short stack and never raise/reraise light, etc. But then congratulations the annoying short stackers wouldn't have any edge on you, but you'd get run over by the other players. The only way to truly "counter" them is to actually play a short stack yourself. If stacks are deep and everyone plays optimally, short stackers will still make a small profit. This is why I think there's a strong argument for raising the minimum buy-in, b/c allowing people to short stack hit-n-run actually does give them an unfair advantage.