|
|
#21
09-21-2007, 05:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ratholers unite
if you wanna discuss this, pm me your aim
|
|
#22
09-21-2007, 05:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ratholers unite
once again pete demonstrates he's one of the only shortstacks with a brain
my argument would be only that both tags and fish like playing more hands (this is part of why live games are uncapped, imo), and shortstacks disable them from doing that. furthermore, for every shortstack out there, there's 10 idiots who buy in for 20 BBs at the highest limit they can afford and often go broke quickly - raising the limit means these players (probably) generate more rake. but mostly pete's unfortunately right
|
|
#23
09-21-2007, 05:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ratholers unite
[ QUOTE ]
my argument would be only that both tags and fish like playing more hands (this is part of why live games are uncapped, imo), and shortstacks disable them from doing that. [/ QUOTE ] What people want to do and the best business decision for stars are 2 totally different things.
|
|
#24
09-21-2007, 05:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ratholers unite
not gonna do it right now, but if they have trouble understanding the fact that smaller edges and greater relative variance is good for the games (i would think they already know that) i can code up a simulation.
one other point to add regarding that: -the amount that fishies play is limited by money. the sharks are limited by time. higher buyin = higher winrates means the sharks will be taking money out at a faster rate, while the money coming in will be roughly constant. this obviously means less hands played per dollar coming in, and less rake.
|
|
#25
09-21-2007, 08:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ratholers unite
ratholers should suffer.
|
|
#28
09-22-2007, 08:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ratholers unite
why not play SNGs if you like shoving with 10 big blinds?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
