|
|
#12
09-21-2007, 03:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ratholers unite
[ QUOTE ]
Which pro? One argument would be that they would be losing 5k/month in rake from me alone. [/ QUOTE ] hm, seems like there are lots of people who do 5k/mo in rake. thats like a bit over half of a regular msnl month. i doubt that would be a v convincing argument. 
|
|
#13
09-21-2007, 03:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ratholers unite
Im not a ratholer, but any situation where the edge of the top 5% increases then the other 95% are harmed due to it being a zero sum game.
Stars should protect the 95% because they are the lifeblood of the site - not just in rake, but in having the top 5% play there.
|
|
#14
09-21-2007, 03:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ratholers unite
[ QUOTE ]
I'd play PS 10 times more if they raised min and got 25/50 6max [/ QUOTE ] Why are there no 6max games 25/50 and above? Why are PS so slow in adding these features?
|
|
#17
09-21-2007, 03:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ratholers unite
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Which pro? One argument would be that they would be losing 5k/month in rake from me alone. [/ QUOTE ] hm, seems like there are lots of people who do 5k/mo in rake. thats like a bit over half of a regular msnl month. i doubt that would be a v convincing argument. [/ QUOTE ] SSers generate a ton of rake.
|
|
#18
09-21-2007, 04:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ratholers unite
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Which pro? One argument would be that they would be losing 5k/month in rake from me alone. [/ QUOTE ] hm, seems like there are lots of people who do 5k/mo in rake. thats like a bit over half of a regular msnl month. i doubt that would be a v convincing argument. [/ QUOTE ] SSers generate a ton of rake. [/ QUOTE ] how is that? they never see flops And I was there when this was discussed in the chat.. The pro's name is John Tuthie. This shortstacker is making this post out of fear that his cockroaching days are over. Instead every regular at high stakes should take this opportunity and send an email to stars and ask for seperate shortstack games where they can leech of eachother
|
|
#19
09-21-2007, 05:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ratholers unite
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Which pro? One argument would be that they would be losing 5k/month in rake from me alone. [/ QUOTE ] hm, seems like there are lots of people who do 5k/mo in rake. thats like a bit over half of a regular msnl month. i doubt that would be a v convincing argument. [/ QUOTE ] 5k was an estimate, I prolly pay just as anyone playing the same # of hands.
|
|
#20
09-21-2007, 05:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ratholers unite
1 - shortstackers generate a lot of rake. there's lots of them, and they would likely play elsewhere if the buyin was changed. 2 - the donkeys lose their money much slower when there's shortstacks in the game because - they get their money in with a small average edge, even against bad players. this let's bad players gamble with in only slightly -ev situations. - when they get their money in against a shortstack, they don't usually lose their whole stack/bankroll - top full stack players are forced to play tighter to avoid getting into -EV situations against short stacks. top players playing less hands against the fish means the fish lose their money slower. this is particularly good when the good players have the fish covered. 3-in general, the money is distributed more evenly: - good fullstackers have a smaller edge, and take less money out of the game - shortstackers in general have small edges, so they don't take much money out of the games - fish lose slower (as explained above) - this means that the money the fish bring into the games gets passed around more before its cashed out by winners, and more rake is generated overall 4 - the only players that might actually leave if the buyin isn't increased are the good full stack players. if you're trying to maximize rake, you don't really want them in the games anyway. there are fish who don't like shortstacks, but if the shortstacks weren't there, they'd lose their money to the sharks much faster, and they might move to sites where they're "luckier". 5-smaller edges means more gamble in general. the fish are more likely to win over extended periods of time, and they're likely to stay convinced they're +EV over a much longer period of time. if buyins are increased, they'll lose so fast they'll quickly realize they're losers, and will either quit because they're losing or go broke. 6-when the fish go broke, the people who were whining for bigger min buyins will leave and go to other sites because they don't want to toss money back and forth with other good players in what has become a much higher variance game.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
