Deep stack tables

[Aisthesis]

I thought I'd start a separate thread on this, as there have been a number of ideas put out there, but I feel like they've gotten lost in some of the other longish threads.

What I'd like to get is a suggestion that a number of the regulars on Stars who read this board would be willing to send as an "open email" with multiple signers to Stars, where a lot of players are unhappy with too many short-stacks.

This would be my suggestion: Create some PLO tables at each level with a minimum buy-in of 50 BB and max buy-in of 400 BB.

Then everyone would have a choice of which tables to play. The casino standard I'm familiar with is minimum of 50 BB and no cap. But someone pointed out that the "no cap" might mean fast ruin for some.

The same certainly also applies to casinos, but I think online does actually need some cap, since you're much less limited by money in pocket, you can sit down pretty much any time (hence it's easier to be playing when you're not in the right frame of mind, etc.) and various other things.

What do you guys think of this idea?

A more moderate version would be: Minimum buy-in 50 BB and max of 200 BB. I really don't think 200 BB is all that deep in PLO (look at the games Reuben talks about, where they often have 500 BB all the way up to 1,000 sometimes), but it's usually enough to play all streets in most raised pots, although there are certainly exceptions.

[gordo16]

Something tells me that while Stars might be okay with raising the minimum buy-in, they would never set up deep stack tables with a buy in higher than 100 BB's. That being said, I would still put my name on an e-mail asking for them.

[autobet]

emailed them for 80-200BB tables...

[BluffTHIS!]

I predict that they have a bigger problem with upping the min than with larger max buyins. A thread in the zoo a few months ago had responses by Lee showing they agonized over just changing the default buyin to a larger number that still allowed buying in shorter than that. Similarly they have a problem with 6-max plo tables when they have tons of 6-max limit and no limit HE tables.

The main point to stress to them and which I have made repeatedly, is that they aren't protecting tons of fish who would take shots with more money and dump their rolls, but rather a handful of weak-tight short stack queers who are ruining the games.

[Troll_Inc]

Think this one through...

If you are Stars, you will do things that make you more money and are good for your business.

I know that if I buy in for $25 at PLO 25, PLO 50, or PLO 100, I'm going to pay more rake at PLO 100. This means that when I'm shortstacking, Stars is going to make more money off me per hand.

At what level is the rake going to not matter? The answer probably is where 90% of the pots are more than the max rake they collect. (Someone who plays at higher levels may know).

Also, I assume you guys that are complaining are talking about PLO200 and greater tables? If so, if the rake is neglible, I would include this in your arguement.

Lastly, I'm not sure why you guys don't just play Full Tilt which pretty much only has the 6 player tables.

[omahakid]

the real question is: what is more profitable for stars? They are of course only concerned with how to get max rake and keep people playing the game. So increasing the 100bb buy-in dont make sence, due to the max 3 dollar rake. they want to keep the pots around 60 bucks.

However, the increasing of the min buy-in might be profitable for them, because it might draw more people(me anyway). But, these gay short-stakced people are actually good for stars since the pots dont get too big, and thus nobody lose much money and the real winner is stars. But the volume might go down due to these gay-no-brain-and-no-skill- short-stacked "pokerplayers".

[Troll_Inc]

I should have added, that I'll send Stars an email if someone comes up with a coherent email. You ppl that don't like the short-stackers seem like a good bunch of chaps.

(I'll add that I only play Full Tilt and if they (Stars) wants my business they will have to make their games better.)

[beset]

Hello Stars Support,

I thought you would like to know that many high-volume pot-limit omaha players are very dissatisfied with the current state of the PLO games on Poker Stars. If you were not aware, there has been a book published recently that outlines a very successful short-stack strategy to PLO. The strategy can be employed playing dozens of tables in a relatively simple fashion, perhaps even using the aid of computer software. The structure of the games on Poker Stars facilitates the use of the "system" by allowing very small minimum buy-ins, by only spreading full ring games and by permitting people to return 30 minutes after leaving a table and buying back in for the minimum amount. Frustration with the consequences of widespread deployment of this strategy has caused many high volume players to switch to Full Tilt Poker where the games are short-handed and not infested with short-stack system players. I thought you might want to refer the suggestions department to the following threads in the PLO forum on the Two Plus Two LLC poker discussion forums:
[List of threads and thread summaries omitted]

Poker stars has the best support and reputation of any online poker site. Many of us, including myself, would greatly prefer to pay our rake to Stars. With the nice software, support and the VIP system, playing at Poker Stars can be a wonderful experience. The decline in the quality of the PLO games in the wake of the increase in "rat-holing" (taking money off the table after doubling up) and computer bot-like short-stack system play has been very disappointing. The fact that short-handed, deep stack games are thriving on other sites, in particular Full Tilt Poker, should support the contention that the structure of full ring, 20bb minimum buy-ins and rat-hole friendly rebuy rules is not the only way to keep the games healthy.

Thanks for taking the time to consider our perspective. As a high-volume professional poker player I am hopeful Poker Stars management will respond to our concerns in some way. Hopefully, by both responding to the threads on Two Plus Two and making changes to the games.

Thanks!

P.S. Just to be sure this is clear: I am a user-moderator on Twoplustwo.com and I am not in any way affiliated with Two Plus Two Publishing, LLC.

[Aisthesis]

I don't see that this would decrease their profits really.

Already at the 2/4, average pot-size at a lot of tables is $80 or more. At the 25/50 every pot already has to have max rake.

I would really think that for online poker, just drawing more players is the most profitable way to go. My guess is that even at the .50/1, a deep stack table would lead to larger average pot sizes, although the variation in pot size would also be bigger. That's somewhat less profitable for them, since the one huge pot has max rake and the few $10 or so pots are still raked at the normal percentage.

But I really don't see it as a rake issue, since it obviously does work for them running high-stakes games where their rake PERCENTAGE is less.

BUT they get several advantages from this: For one thing, they're just holding (presumably getting interest) the large BRs of various high-stakes players. Moreover, it costs them no more to run a 25/50 game than it does for them to run a .50/1 game--but in the former they're gaining $3 off of every single pot, in the latter only occasionally.

From their standpoint, I think the main issue is keeping as many players at their tables as possible.

The only thing they WOULDN'T want to do (from a self-interest point of view) is pull players away from tables where they get a bigger rake and get them on tables where they get a smaller one. I just don't see that deep stack tables would do that.

If they had those tables, I'd personally almost always still buy in for 100 BB to begin with. If there was a really fishy player with a deep stack, particularly one on whom I had position and a good read, then I'd look to have that player covered. That's at least the only adjustment I'd make.

And currently, I just tend to avoid most tables where there are only a bunch of short-stacks because I feel like there's little money in it for me.

So, just looking at what they could expect from me personally, I think they'd end up getting a little more play time and probably slightly more rake per hour played--since I'd be inclined to play/raise/re-raise a little more often under certain conditions if I had more available stack depth.

[autobet]

These players don't have to study their opponents too much or think much so they can play 5-10 games at once (not recommended for deep stack players!) so they are creating more rake than the average deep stack player.