The Illogical War on Shortstackers

PokerStars considering eliminating short-stacking from the cash tables and upping the buy-in is terrible news.  I have trouble believing such a course of action is even being considered.  Most of the fish prefer buying in short and playing with people that have a lesser buy-in.  They feel less threatened.  The regular pros know this so they are forced to drop to the 20BB buy-in tables and battle the short-stackers (who often have a profitable counter-balance strategy against them) to catch their fish.  Despite the greedy regulars already having their 50BB+ tables, they still complain that all tables should be 35BB+.  So if it was only an issue of “refusing to play against short-stackers” then they would be happy staying on their 50BB+ tables.  I really don’t see the issue for complaint here.  When I search for tables the 50BB+ tables often seem to be more profitable and loose.  But they want it all; it’s never enough.

So my advice to the complainers is to stay on your 50BB tables, shut up, and fold around to each-other with the 7 other nit’s on your table only playing AK+ (except when the occasional 2 fish per hour swim through, then adjust your range slightly).  You already have your 50BB+ tables!  Forcing casual players to buy-in 40BB+ is illogical, but I have a feeling the changes will still end up going through with PokerStars.  It would seem to make sense for PokerStars to bend over for their super-users; they are generating much of the rake.

Once Stars gives in to super-users they should logically add a few table buy-in types to make the move at least look like a "compromise".  This will ruin short-stackers because at least half of the fish will choose the 35BB+ tables.  Therefore, short-stackers lose half their fish, while the typical super-user gains that half to feast on.  The 50BB tables will remain 7 nit pros per tables, and the 20BB+ tables (if any) will typically be composed 7 short-stackers who can’t adapt from their strategy.  However, all of the super nova elites won’t be fighting those 35BB+ tables for the fish alone.  Their strategy is not hard to play, it is rather ABC.  The push equilibriums really good short-stackers use to determine 4-bets pre-flop are as advanced as any strategy full buy-in players use daily.  Many competent shortstacking players will adapt and move to the 35BB+ tables.  Hopefully fish will still choose the 20+ BB tables even if an option is given, then players like Steel will have nothing left to complain about.  Only time will tell. 

I hope PokerStars doesn’t even try to play the "looking out for the casual player" card when debating these changes.  This would truly be laughable.  In actuality they would only be looking out for their whiney super-users that would rather not adapt to changing environment. 

If you really wanted to improve the experience for the casual user you would BAN multi-tabling over 12 tables.  While you send out your little surveys try asking the "casual user" if he would rather:

A)  Have table buy-ins adjusted to 35BB+ to avoid playing against short-stackers.

Or

B)  Limit super-users to 12 tables (so you have to play with them less) and BAN the use of an HUD.

I guarantee the causal player would 100% choose option B ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.

If PokerStars truly cared about the experience of the casual they would limit the number of table's super-users can play at once, and would work towards BANNING not only data-mining, but the use of an HUD while playing.  An HUD is now so advanced that it has become SUPERIOR data-mining.  When you data-mine you are normally talking about lifetime statistics that you wouldn't previously know about.  Well player's adapt over time, so not all of those statistics remain vaild.  But an HUD is MUCH WORSE.  With an HUD you can simply buy hand histories from the last few months, (or borrow from a super-user friend) and plug them into your software, which the HUD is based off of.  Therefore, you have a filtered data-mine, which is the only way the super-users on Pokerstars can possible play 24-tables at once and still destroy the fish on EVERY one of those tables.

If you want to help the casual player you would push to limit the super-user's range (aka hunting grounds) and BAN the HUD.  The super-users and the software will eventually ruin online poker, NOT short-stackers. 

That being said it really doesn’t surprise me at all that Full Tilt went through with their changes with regards to the min buy-in.  They do not support the casual player, they support their players like Steel whose lives revolve around 24-tabling and trying to smash the fish 24-7.  This was proven in the past as no disciplinary action was taken against a top pro who was caught data-mining (aka-cheating) red-handed high stakes.

Actions I will Take if The Buy-in is Raised

If the out-come is unfavorable I will personally fund and create a website devoted to this cause.  I will form a coalition of short-stackers to fight back.  So go ahead, bend-down to players like "Steel" because he will be leaving if you don't ruin all short-stackers", even know he admittedly "still has a huge bankroll and is waiting for the decision".  If that's the clientele you’re trying to keep, this is a serious mistake.  First off, Steel's 20k bankroll doesn't mean anything in the long-run.  Every player like Steel takes away a few hundred players casual players from your site EVERY MONTH, by data-mining and chasing them until they are extinct.  The casual player then becomes discouraged and leaves, instead of depositing into your site multiple times.  And can we really blame them for leaving?  They do have a completely unfair advantage.

Anyways, Steel said he would leave PokerStars if short-stackers aren’t banned.  Well I’m going to do him “one better” if shortstacking IS banned.  I will fund my own website that will stand as a monument to this injustice, which will be funded by Squarespace. Imagine new players Googling "PokerStars for new players?" and the search result "Beginners beware, click here to see what players PokerStars really cares about".  So Stars will end up losing thousands of customers in the long run.

Oh and I'm close friends with the Squarespace team, they have my full support.  I'll make sure the site is put on the front display page of Squarespace examples which gets over 2 million hits per month:

(http://www.squarespace.com/examples/)

So please decide if a handful of players like Steel using their 20k bankroll on your site is more important than the pending negative publicity storm. But it won't be me personally who gives PokerStars the negative publicity.  Stars will be giving themselves the negative publicity.  I will simply be organizing and directing the freshly created outrage.  So good luck upping the blinds to please player's like Steel.  The good thing is there is still time to make the right decision here.

Closing Thoughts. 

If you take away one thing from my post please remember NOT to let the majority of the users on the 2+2 forums influence your decision in ANY WAY.  The "majority" of the 2+2 forums members care nothing about the poker community in general.  They are the typical "super-users" playing 24-tables at once, data-mining, using PTR, and using an HUD while playing.  They ONLY care about their own personal gains.  Asking them what changes PokerStars should make to improve the "casual player's experience" would be like the U.S government deciding to ask Osama Bin Laden advice on what policies they should enact to improve the life quality of the average U.S citizen.  It would be like asking the Lion where he thinks the gazelle should drink water!  I sincerely hope the policy change decisions are kept in house and based on the interests of your real customers, and the customers you are trying to attract in the future.  Not the customers who give you "advice" that will help them further exploit the casual player for their own gain.

Out of most people posting on here, I am a player speaking for the general poker community.  I have a net loss record on PokerStars in only 50,000 hands (about to make my second $600 deposit in the last month).  I have short-stacked and played full ring on various sites.  I currently short-stack 8-12 tables on Stars, but could easily switch to full-ring if necessary.  I have less invested then most serious short-stackers.  You would only be messing up 3-months that I put towards my online poker goals.  But messing up the goals of other super-nova elite short-stacker's like 1bunn, IMSAKIDD, yugor, Sodom, call honey, and dymarko is another story.

Enacting these changes would just be siding with one super-user over another.  The short-stackers just haven't been around as long, so they have less of a voice.

Please don't let the majority of the users on 2+2 forums influence your decision in anyway.  Remember, don't take the Lion's advice if you are REALLY trying to protect the gazelle.

Comments

[Lucypher]

I (Lucypher) am a short stacker and I support this message.

[Baglife]

Posted on 2+2 today:

http://bit.ly/bJTadR

I will also email Stars personally. If any short-stacker happens to stumble here and wants to help support the movement please contact me.