Sent a lot of emails out about getting a 'NO MAX' buy in

[theBruiser500]

Allowing an unlimited buyin game in many ways makes a NL/PL game a simple
case of bankroll chicken; the player with the biggest roll will tend to
break the game, or force the other players to play hit and run sessions,
which is also not good for a game. At present, we have no plans to
introduce an unlimited buyin NL game.

Regards,

Jacob
PokerStars Support Team

[hetron]

DO the UB 5-10 blind games have a max buy in?

[blubster]

it would be cool if Bill Gates bought in for 1 billion dollars and then went ALL-IN when someone raised 5 bucks.

that'd be pretty funny. i'd like to see a game like this

blubster

[scrub]

All UB NL games have a 100 BB maximum buyin.

scrub

[ElSapo]

I took Jones' response to be a bit tounge in cheek. I saw him saying "yeah, we know what you want and you know why we don't want it, so..."

The T7o v KK bit tipped the scales for me, to make me think he was kidding.

El Sapo

[_And1_]

There are quite a few games at the NL10-20 (max buy in 2000) on the net, true these are unlimited buyin games, but they tend to be pretty large anyways...

[EVIL]

Not good enough!

I want to be able to sit down at a 0.25/0.50 NL Party game with a $4000 stack.

[cferejohn]

[ QUOTE ]
Allowing an unlimited buyin game in many ways makes a NL/PL game a simple
case of bankroll chicken; the player with the biggest roll will tend to
break the game, or force the other players to play hit and run sessions,
which is also not good for a game. At present, we have no plans to
introduce an unlimited buyin NL game.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that is at least reasonable. However, I don't think anyone is asking for *every* NL game to be no max buy in, just a couple at the highest blind limits. Certainly making the .25/.50 NL game no max buy-in is just going to scare players off, but if they made a couple 5/10 no-max tables, I just don't see the harm. I mean, if people *want* to play bankroll chicken, that's really their problem, isn't it?

They probably do have a policy of not wanting anyone to get busted out, since then they will leave the site and not give them more money. A no-max buy in game would run the risk of busting some players with very large bankrolls.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Allowing an unlimited buyin game in many ways makes a NL/PL game a simple case of bankroll chicken; the player with the biggest roll will tend to break the game, or force the other players to play hit and run sessions,
which is also not good for a game.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that is at least reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it really isn't.

It's reasonable for them to say they won't spread one (and they don't need a reason, it's their game).

It's reasonable for them to say they won't spread one for some of the other reasons you mention (scaring off players, busting people out, etc.).

It's not reasonable for them to make up this ridiculous imaginary "bankroll chicken" scenario based on what they see in their play money games and use that as a reason for not spreading the game.

[cferejohn]

I thought it was more or less true that in an NL game, all other things being equal (i.e. all the players are of roughly the same skill level), if someone sits down with a much bigger stack than the rest of the table, they will tend to walk away with the money. Brunson is quite adamant about it in Super/System.

In any case, it is certainly the case that this sort of game could lead to some pretty well bankrolled players getting busted and leaving the site, which would probably not be good for them (since in addition to the generally higher rakes on the higher games, I'm guessing that all of the cash they are sitting on isn't just sitting under a matress...)

It would be nice if they would just come out and say that.