Hate shortstackers? Enjoy 50bb minimum-buyin games? Help Negreanu / PS

[Blue Lagoon]

NL cash game is a flawed game. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Regards,
A minbet player (who play SS sometimes, just to annoy you) [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[AJackson]

[ QUOTE ]
Leave it at 20BBs and raise the rathole limit to an hour.

Pro SSers will be forced to play less or rathole less.

Donks who are buying in short just cuz they suck/don't know any better will still be able to play at limits way above their head.

Win/win.

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone who plays with these shortstackers every day, I think this is right on.

There are simply too many player who like to buyin for the minimum at the midstakes and gamble. They don't want tough decisions and if you pushup the buyin they'll mostly move down or move elsewhere. I believe we'll lose more than we gain.

High stakes is a different environment. They don't get the advantage of a bunch of bad short stackers

IMO, even the good short stackers aren't that hard to play against. Don't make spite calls and understand hand ranges. Figuring out their range is fairly simple and once they shove on you it becomes a mathematical problem.

Over the past 8 weeks I'm up a decent amount against the three players I consider decent. Not enough hands to be sure I'm +EV against them, but enough that I know that I'm at least breaking even long term.

[Dennisa]

I played at the bike close to 200 hours 1st quarter of the year. At the 100NL ( 2/3 blinds max buy in 33bb's) and 200NL games ( 3/5 blinds max buy in 40bb's) if you table changed, you had to come in at the max buy in regardless of how much you had at the previous table.

Show me a larger poker room than the Commerce Casino outside of the Rio during the WSOP.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

Great. Most of the shortstackers at my tables (NL200) are loose and don't raise. They are playing exactly opposite of the way they should be playing short. Thet are often simply the worst players at the table.

I wonder about anyone who wants to discourage bad play, or can't adjust their game to loose, passive shortstackers.

There are so few playing right that they don't matter.

[Aceshigh7]

This should make all those people that lack the skills to adjust to short stack players happy.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
This should make all those people that lack the skills to adjust to short stack players happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the whole point as to why shortstackers are bad for the game.

[excession]

iPoker runs tables at each level with a fixed buy in of 100BB's.

They haven't 'spread like wildfire' - there are maybe one or two running at the most popular levels for about 20 normal 20BB min tables.

Of course what happens is that the fish mostly just stay on the short ones.

I've been saying for a long time that Stars should run some 100BB tables alongside the normal ones, but don't expect it to mean very much or add anything to your winrates in the long term

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This should make all those people that lack the skills to adjust to short stack players happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the whole point as to why shortstackers are bad for the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

They aren't. You may have a perception that they are bad for the game, but they aren't. But I hope that PS does give you what you want -- deep tables with a minimum of 100 bb buy in. I'll stay behind with the short buys that are clueless, and take my chances with the 1 in 20 shortstack that knows what he's doing.

[poker345]

i am afraid some players are looking at their own interest more not thinking for the poker economy and without understanding it,asking for even less games running.

[excession]

Wouldn't that depend on the number of tables available?

Say a pro shorty averages 20 mins/table and 8 tables.

On average he will get through 24 tables/hour

So long as there are 24 active tables he can sit in on at the site, a 1 hr rathole time makes no difference to him does it? He can rotate them indefinitely and still rathole each one.

Or of course he can just blitz every available table then move onto another site until his rathole time is up (possibly even on the same network in a lot of cases).

And as the site owners probably get more rake/hr from an 8 tabling shorty than a 4 tabling 100BB player why the hell are they going to force the more valuable one to leave their site and play elsewhere for the benefit of the 100BB pro?

The best solution is simply to provide 100BB fixed buy-in tables alongside the 20BB buy-in ones - and add more full stack ones if the ones available fill up. That's what alerady happens on several sites (such as iPoker)

The 100BB pros can then avoid the shorties.

Of course as most shorties at stakes<$400NL suck and are big donators, they would be daft to do this, but it may have some usefulness for the higher stake players I guess..