Party Poker Shortstack Abuse

[dtbog]

[ 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

[IHateCats]

Along those lines, I think asking party to open 6max, SH & HU tables similar to Pokerroom or Prima is the approach most likely to have success, emphasizing that there is a market for such tables & 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 & 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.

[SpaceAce]

[ 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

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

[Woolygimp]

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.

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.

[GoodTiMes]

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.

[fsuplayer]

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."

[Rococo]

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.

[durrrr]

[ 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.