Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

A couple of weeks ago I made a post complaining about short stack abuse on Party Poker. I said I would come up with a rough draft letter, and then you guys could help me edit it, then we could send it in large numbers...

My lazy azz never made the letter, but I just did a quick one to start the process.
I did it quickly and I'm not the greatest writer, so I would be very appreciate if you guys could help me finetune my letter.

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

Here it is...

Dear Party,
While I am generally impressed with the gaming service you offer there is one thing that annoys me and a lot of other players.
Currently you allow your minimum buy-in to be 1/5 of the max buy in. So when I play 2000 NL, players are allowed to buy in for $400. And if they win or lose a pot they are allowed to leave the table and re-enter the table at the $400 mark even if they had more money on the table just 20 seconds ago.

This is different from many of the other top poker networks and causes a huge problem in the games. These players who buy in for the min (shortstacks) usually have two moves.

1. Go all-in preflop, usually over the top of a pre-flop raise
2. Fold

This is wrong and hurts the game on a number of different levels.

1. By going all in pre-flop they destroy the pace and flow of the game. The other players have to play less hands to adjust b/c they have to be in fear of being raised over the top preflop. This is bad for you b/c it also results in less rake for you guys because the game becomes less loose and aggressive.

2. Whenever I see two of these type of players I immediately leave the table or don’t play there at all b/c for one going all in with out see a flop isn’t real poker and that’s a waste of my time and its not as fun to be forced to player a tighter more conservative style.

3. So when the shortstack goes all in preflop and wins a race to get his stack up to $800, he is then allowed to leave the table and come back with $400. This is absolutely ludicrous, I’ve never heard of taking money off the table in a NL, PL game.

How to Solve the Problem:

1) The most common way this problem has been solved by the other major poker networks is not to allow the shortstack to leave the table and come back with a different stack amount for a designated period of time. So if the abusing player doubles up to $800, he cannot come back to that same table with less money. With a bigger stack it is much less mathetmatically equitable to have a strategy of going all in or folding pre-flop.

This is good because now for atleast one hour, I am spared of this player ruining the pace of this specific tables’ game. I will actually get to see flops and play real poker.

2) Another way to solve the problem would be to increase the minimum buy in. Changing the buy in from 1/5 to 2/5 would go a very very long way in solving the problem.

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

you rock dude. I am pretty much just copying this and sending it off.

death to cduhong!!

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

we really need everyone who plays on party to send this letter, this could help our btm line alot, as i have had crazy LAGs sit out, refusing to play bc of these short stacks.

so damn frustrating.

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

Cdu is by far the worst abuser. Fancy being the 2nd.

These guys have no talent and are just abusing Party Poker's incompetence.

But I think a much better, more organnized and eloquent letter can be written that will more effectively convey our frustration.

So hopefully one of you smarter guys can help us out.

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

as my posts demonstrate, i am much more proficient as a poker player than a writer. maybe one of these law school guys can help out.

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

el diablo = cduhong?

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

Grammatical Edits a la Mark:

[ QUOTE ]

Dear Party,
While I am generally impressed with the gaming services you offer, there is one persistent annoying for me and many other players: Currently you allow your minimum buy-in to be 1/5 of the maximum buy-in. So when I play 2000 NL, players are allowed to buy in for $400. If they win or lose a pot, they are allowed to leave the table and re-enter the table, returning to $400, despite having significantly[/b] more money on the table only 20 seconds earlier.

This mass of short-stacked players has proven more than an annoyance, but debilitating to legitimate players. The players who buy in for the minimum usually have two moves:

1. Go all-in preflop, usually over the top of a pre-flop raise
2. Fold

This is hurts the game on a number of different levels:

1. By going all in pre-flop, they destroy the pace and flow of the game. The other players have to play less hands to adjust because they have to be in fear of being raised over the top preflop. This is bad for you because it results in less rake—the game becomes less loose and aggressive.

2. Whenever I see two of these type of players, I immediately leave the table, because going all in before the flop repeatedly isn’t real poker. It's a waste of my time, and it's not as fun to be forced to player a tighter, more conservative style.

3. When the short-stack goes all in preflop and wins a race to get his stack up to $800, he is then allowed to leave the table and come back with $400. This is absolutely ludicrous, I’ve never heard of taking money off the table in a NL, PL game.
<u>This isn't really a reason it hurts the game. It's just stating that something you already said hurts the game.. hurts the game.</u>

How to Solve the Problem:

1) The most common way this problem has been solved by the other major poker networks is to not allow short-stacks to leave the table and come back with a different stack amount for a designated period of time. So if players double up to $800, they cannot come back to that same table with less money. With a bigger stack, it is much less mathematically equitable to have a strategy of simply going all in or folding pre-flop.

This is good because now for at least one hour, I am spared of this player ruining the pace of this specific tables’ game. I will actually get to see flops and play real poker.

2) Another way to solve the problem would be to increase the minimum buy-in. Changing the buy-in from 1/5 to 2/5 would go a very very long way in solving the problem.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
x



[/ QUOTE ]

I probably didn't get everything, but it's a start.
-mark

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

maybe you can add a couple of these guys screennames in the letter. Party would want to 'investigate'. Fancyfree rocks!

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

thanks mark.

and thats a good idea hittheset.

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

perhaps a mention of the term "rat-holing" and it's unacceptableness in live games would be appropriate in this letter.

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

There are two fundamental problems with your letter:

#1 It sounds like you are whining about short stack players

#2 You are not focusing on the one way to ensure that Party makes a change: lost revenue


Your letter should go along the lines of:

Party Poker,

Myself and other high stakes no limit players would like to point out a problem that is costing you revenue and could lead to you losing most of your players.

The problem is that people are not forced to re-enter a game with the same size stack that they just left the same game with. The biggest abusers of this problem are people who buy in for the minimum and once they double up, they immediately leave and then re-enter the game for the minimum again. This causes many other players not to play with them, decreasing the size of the pot and the amount of money that you can rake. Since many other poker websites dissallow this type of behavior, many of the high stakes players are leaving party and going elswhere.

We can think of three solutions to this problem:

#1 Doubling or tripling the minimum buy-in. This would remove the short stack people's ability to do their "all-in over the top" move and ensure that other players would be willing to play with them.

#2 Force people who leave a game to re-enter the game with the same size stack that they left with. You could expand this to include a time out where if the person does not wish to re-enter the game with that many chips, they are forced to wait an hour before they can re-enter.

#3 Make the buy-in a fixed amount.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this problem.

Sincerely,
Non Short Stack Players

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

i think appealing more to their lost revenue is a great idea.

what does everyone else think?

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

The problem is, I don't think short stacks decrease their revenue. Assume for the most part that most short stacks are losing players. They will contribute significantly more in rake with 5x $400 buyins than 1 $2k buyin.

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is, I don't think short stacks decrease their revenue. Assume for the most part that most short stacks are losing players. They will contribute significantly more in rake with 5x $400 buyins than 1 $2k buyin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe so, but if they cause crazy LAGs to sit out and therefore cause good players to play fewer tables or sit out, then they're definitely costing PP rake in the long-run.

edit: clarity

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

Along those lines, I think asking party to open 6max, SH &amp; HU tables similar to Pokerroom or Prima is the approach most likely to have success, emphasizing that there is a market for such tables &amp; the revenue generated by their highter # of hands per hour. I seriously doubt the argument as put forth will have much weight with Party simply because short stack players tend to play on a decent # of tables &amp; play their hands quickly and hence in Party's eyes are a decent revenue source. Emphasizing that you play a substantial # of hands at sites other than Party specifically because of short stacks seems the most persuasive argument to party under the circumstances.

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

Well-written. This is a much better letter; good job taking the initiative.

With enough high-stakes SNs attached with an associated email, I could see this being reasonable effective.

They may still decide that it's just not important enough to care, but you never know.
-mark

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

[ QUOTE ]
i think appealing more to their lost revenue is a great idea.

what does everyone else think?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is unlikely that short-stack artists are costing PartyPoker money. Even the argument about about players sitting out when the short-stacks are in is bogus. What are those other players going to do? Sit out for 24 hours, 48 hours, a week? No, they'll sit out for a few minutes and either get bored and play, go to another table or leave and come back later. In the meantime, someone else will fill the seat and even if the seat remains vacant, no limit poker is hardly reliant on having eight-way flops to max out the rake.

I also think the letter sounds like sour grapes over short-stack players excercising their right to move all-in. Any player can move all-in at any time in no limit; that's why it's called no limit. Whining about players coming over the top in a no limit game is absurd. More attention needs to be payed to the ratholing angle because ratholing is a legitimate problem. There is no excuse for PartyPoker to let someone pick up $1,000 from a table and sit back down two minutes later with $400.

SpaceAce

Why are you guys whining?
 

Shortstack strategy is a strategy just like everything else. Ed miller is an advocate of this strategy, as it allows players to beat better opponents. He saws NL is a flawed game because of it...
Anyway I think you guys better get use to shortstack all-ins.

Re: Why are you guys whining?
 

maybe i dont know so much about this, but i dont think the first solution would work.

with so many tables on party, the shortstack abusers will just double up then go to another table. that said the second solution seems to be a good idea.

also the key reason i think should be pointed out re: loss of revenue is that the company is losing respect in the eyes of one of its groups, which will result in less players than otherwise possible at the high stakes games, as players move to other sites.

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

I like some of your guys ideas and responses.

And I'm 100% sure that if either you weren't allowed to come back to the table at 20% max or min was increased to 40%, that players like CDU and Fancy become extinct.

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

i sent mr. curious' letter as is, with this addition at the end:


"ps. cduhong is a good example of a player who abuses this policy and rountinely causes players to leave the table and not play HU, 3, or 4 handed if he is sitting."

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

Any letter to Party needs to strongly emphasize the difference in structure between the Party games and the games on other sites and suggest that Party risks losing high stakes players to other sites if it doesn't switch to a more attractive structure.

You shouldn't even mention the playing style of the short stacks. I assure you that Party doesn't give a [censored] about that issue.

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

[ QUOTE ]
Party risks losing high stakes players to other sites.


[/ QUOTE ]

This shouldnt be mentioned. Sites dont want "high stakes players." Instead it should be said that "people in general prefer" or... "most players whom i know prefer" a different blind structure. Party would have no problem losing its multi-tabling pros.

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

[ QUOTE ]
Party would have no problem losing its multi-tabling pros.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you kidding? which do you think a site likes more, having sharks clean out the fishies very quickly or having several weak tight nits trading small amounts of money back and forth, producing a max rake on every pot all the while?

Re: Party Poker Shortstack Abuse
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Party risks losing high stakes players to other sites.


[/ QUOTE ]

This shouldnt be mentioned. Sites dont want "high stakes players." Instead it should be said that "people in general prefer" or... "most players whom i know prefer" a different blind structure. Party would have no problem losing its multi-tabling pros.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say anything about pros. Party clearly considers it a competitive necessity to offer high stakes games. Otherwise they wouldn't do so. I find it hard to believe that they offer the games but don't want anyone to play in them. In any case, most of the money does not come from the big games, no matter who is playing in them. All that being said, I agree it doesn't make sense to mention stakes.