The movement to remove shortstackers!!!

[diebitter]

I don't care. I haven't SS'ed in a while, but I make money out of bad shortstackers at a fair rate. I don't mind if they disappear though.

[CazicT]

I am hesitant too because most SS suck. But of course this doesn't mean all tables will have a min. buy-in. But I don't want to see a massive separation where all the SS play on the regular tables and all the DS play at the DS table, because I like to play both. (In reality I only "enjoy" the DS, but I "enjoy" the SS $$ so I don't mind a couple at the table as long as they're not uber tight)

I could see this being great for Daniel though since I have to think it's hard for him to find a "real" game on PS, because I think there are so many donks that will buy-in short (with their entire roll) to the game he plays in. Of course he'll probably win their money, but if he's looking for anything more stimulating it would probably be hard. Of course i'm not sure whether he cares to play online for fun anyway or whether he's somehow obligated through the endorsement deal.

Anyway, I guess i'm for it, but i'm not real passionate either way.

[Cry Me A River]

Yes, please do away with this scourge!

Poker Stars - No Limit Hold'em Cash Game - $0.25/$0.50 Blinds - 8 Players - (LegoPoker Hand History Converter)

SB: $47.15
BB: $11.85
UTG: $48.95
UTG+1: $46.85
Hero (MP1): $70.30
MP2: $33.35
CO: $17.90
BTN: $68.30

Preflop: Hero is dealt J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (8 Players)
2 folds, <font color="red">Hero raises to $2.00</font>, 4 folds, BB calls $1.50

Flop: ($4.25) 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 Players)
<font color="red">BB bets $1.00</font>, <font color="red">Hero raises to $5.00</font>, BB calls $4.00

Turn: ($14.25) 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 Players)
BB checks, <font color="red">Hero bets $5.00</font>, BB calls all-in for $4.85
Uncalled bet of $0.15 returned to Hero

River: ($23.95) 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 Players - 1 All-In)

Pot Size: $23.95 ($1.15 Rake)

BB had J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (high card Jack) and LOST (-$11.85)
Hero had J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (a pair of Jacks) and WON (+$10.95)

[Mr_Donktastic]

There are hardly any 20BB SSers at 400nl on FTP but plenty of people who buy in for 40BBs (I like to call them "dinner").

I'm on the fence about the issue. I don't like having people with 20BBs at my tables but I'd rather have them at my tables with 20BBs than at a lower limit table.

[MyTurn2Raise]

reasons to like a 50BB min buyin:
-it will happen eventually as almost all games are on the pathway to being completely dominated by competent shortstackers
-those with fullstack skills feel cheated that someone who plays a less complex style can be just as profitable. Fullstack 'experts' like to feel as though they've earned something, and perhaps they have
-it makes the game easier to play for a fullstacker as they have to be less aware of stack size adjustments, etc.

reasons to like a 20BB buyin:
-it reduces the 'expert' player's edge, which keeps fish around longer. This maintains good games being available, which welcomes in more fish. Once the poker economy passes a tipping point in the shark to fish ratio, it will devour itself up. Shortstackes help prolong that tipping point from being reached.
-At 400NL and below, the bad shortstackers outnumber the competent shortstackers by a very large amount. It seems unwise to get rid of so many fish taking shots just to avoid the 3-4 regulars who will grind out their profit.



whatever, I'll make money either way.


However, when I hear a small, albeit, vocal minority protesting about something that hurt's their edge, I tend to think it will be bad for the poker economy if the sites listen to that professional minority.

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
-those with fullstack skills feel cheated that someone who plays a less complex style can be just as profitable. Fullstack 'experts' like to feel as though they've earned something, and perhaps they have

[/ QUOTE ]

all they do is exploit the fact that they don't have to adjust to stacksizes, but the ppl with 100bb do(most of the edge comes from players choosing to be -ev vs you in order to be higher +ev vs big stacks)

I wouldn't mind shortstacking if it wasn't for the implied ratholing, since they may be +ev 20bb deep but once it gets to 40-50 it swings back to -ev

[HonestRyan]

back in the day you could buy into sites for 10bbs. then the movement towards 20bbs was the norm. now people want 50bbs to be the minimum. here is my take on strategeries and games.

Poker is a strategy game just like any other strategy game. different players are gonna choose different strategies that match their personalities. Just like any other game there will be ways to combat such strategies.
in chess you have things like the sicilian, kings indian, caro-kann and the french defense. During each strategies hayday it may have been considered unbeatable, but it was never banned.

The only time a strategy should be banned from play is when you are put into a situation where you have to either employ that strategy or lose. Back when i use to play professional magic this kinda thing happened every 3 months, and bannings would go across the board and people would come up with new strategys, and the game would be balanced again. I have been in videogame tournaments where they outlawed certain Characters because they were so powerful that you could not beat them unless u were playing the same unbeateable character. now in these 2 situations it is proper to ban a certain strategy to create a balance in the game.

In poker shortstacking is not a overly powerful strategy. if there are only 1 or 2 players doing it for every 9 players, then that is not ruining games. second of all, 99% of shortstackers play like %%%% and dont understand the idea/concepts behind the strategy. the best short stackers play near a 9/9 style and in the long run make about as much as a typical full buyin TAG who belongs at their respective level. and IMO it is unwise to let the elitist few in poker make decisions to basically ban a strategy because it it affects the way they want to play. whats gonna happen in the future when people complain about all the tight players? ban people from playing tight!?!?

you may stop the top 50 SSers from making money, but lose the other 9,950 losing players who try and fail miserably at successfully shortstacking.

[Sandviper23]

If one site removed the short stackers... they would lose all of those players to the other sites.

if they made separated the tables... short stack available and non short stack... i don't think the short stacks would like that being they wanna be around deep stacks battling it out.. thus resulting back to losing players to other sites.