Immediately buying back in for the minimum after leaving a limit game

[UprightCreature]

The way I see it there are two cases:

1) Heads up pot: In a heads up pot both participants have an effective stack equal to the smaller stack as we all know. In this case ignoring blinds (which average out over multiple hands) there is symmetry and neither player has an advantage. However when a player is short stacked there is a higher chance of that player going all in at some point in the hand. There is no inherent advantage to this however once it happens there are no more decisions to be made in the hand. Without decisions a good player can no longer make better decisions to gain EV over his opponent, this is good for bad players and bad for good players but will never turn a losing player in to a winner. In summary there is no inherent advantage heads up.

2) Multiway pot: In a three way pot there are two effective stacks the smallest stack and the second smallest stack. There is an asymmetry here and thus the possibility of and advantage to one player or another. Whenever the smallest stack goes all-in he can no longer be forced out of a pot, however one of the remaining players may be forced out. Once a side pot has begun the player who is all-in has an EV for the main pot. If no one folds the all-in players long term return from the pot will be this amount. However if someone does fold the EV of the all-in player will either stay the same or go up it never goes down through the action of a fold by a third party. This results in an advantage to the short stack player. Some people will claim that the short stack also loses out on the chance to win a larger pot when they have a strong hand, which is true but they will also miss out on the opportunity to lose a large pot when they make a strong second best hand. This is a symmetric situation so there is no inherent disadvantage of going all-in as a short stack in a multiway pot. Just like in the heads up case when a player goes all-in they can no longer make decisions this is good for losing players neutral for break even players and bad for winning players. In summary there is an inherent advantage to going all-in in a multi way pot with action still to occur. I think it’s clear that the scale of this advantage is inversely proportional to the size of the short stack. The real question should be at what stack size this advantage becomes inconsequential. My feeling is that even at 3BB there is still a reasonable advantage to this as it’s not uncommon for a multiway pot to get capped preflop online. The advantage is probably pretty small at 5BB, but someone rat holing down to 5BB would be playing with less than that a significant portion of the time.


A low minimum buy in (5BB) does keep the bigger games open to some of the weaker players, but I can't think of any reason to allow people to rat hole back down to 5BB as they are already in the game.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems like this might be more of an issue because 'stars default buyin is the min, instead of Party's 25BB. You end up with people buying in short because they think they're doing what they're told. I know this doesn't address the leaving issue, but that might not be an issue at all if people were promted to buy in with 25BB stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I find it very annoying that when I go to sit down in a 15/30 game on stars it automatically fills in a $300 buy-in. That is not enough.

I do think that if you immediately sit back down at the same table you should have to buy-in for at least the amount you had when you left the table. The only negative to this is if you don't have a ton of money in your account and your are multitabling.

Also, it would be great if they had a feature where you could get a seat change button and move seats when one opens up.

[UprightCreature]

I agree I'd love to have some sort of seat change abality online. I hate the fact that I have to wait until there is no list in order to move seats and even then there is no guarantee that I will be able to get back in the game.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems like this might be more of an issue because 'stars default buyin is the min, instead of Party's 25BB. You end up with people buying in short because they think they're doing what they're told. I know this doesn't address the leaving issue, but that might not be an issue at all if people were promted to buy in with 25BB stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should allow the user to decide what buyin amount they want as a default for all tables. (25BB, 43BB etc...) Subject to a minimum of course.

Krishan

[J.A.Sucker]

Hi Lee,

I actually think this is bad for most games, especially shorthanded (where this re-seating with a short stack is the easiest). While it shouldn't theoretically matter how much somebody has, as long as it's enough to play a hand out, it does. Lots of live ones go off for whatever they have in front of them if they are losing. This usually stops if they get back to even or ahead, of course. However, once they go broke, they leave. Your rules prevent this behavior from happening. This is too bad, since much of short handed poker is taking advantage of this. Of course, if you're trying to protect your players, then I understand, but it's not a good rule for the winners.

[Bay]

There is a person who always does this at 30 60 stud8, sits down with 300 then if he wins a pot gets up and sits down again.

short buyins make decisions much much easier. and games like stud8 where there is a danger of being traped it is a greater advantage

IMO min buy in for any game should be 10 bb, and you should have to sit back down with what you stood up with for at least 30 min

There is nothing worse then having someone beat you out of a pot then get up and sit back down with the min buyin

[DrSavage]

Lee, while you're on the subject, can you also ask to make the program remember the last amount I've bought in with at given stakes? Having to type in a meaningful amount as opposed to default of 10 BB every time is very annoying, especially because all the other open tables are trying to grab the keyboard focus at the same time.

[Smoothcall]

There is one option you left off the poll. That it can limit or slowdown a bad players losses. It is not positive or negative ev for a good player. But it can save a bad player from really going off when he's on tilt. Lets say we was rushing and up $1500 now he cashes out comes back with $150 loses it buys in again for 150 losses it then might quit. Where if he had to keep the $1500 on the table he woulda went through it all before quitting. If he won the money from me or whoever in the game we have aright for it to stay on the table and have a chance to get it back. Thats how it works in the b&m rooms thats how it should be online too.

[Phogster]

[ QUOTE ]
Lee,

While you're here, has Stars ever fixed that very annoying glitch where if someone bets all-in less than that round's bet (say 48 on a $60 betting round), you can only complete the bet? This is very annoying and I know it was on the list of things that were supposed to be fixed. Obviously, in this situation (all in bet more than half the required amount), I should be allowed to raise to $108. Let me know.

Thanks,
Jeff

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree with this.

[Lee Jones]

Hi folks -
I want to thank everybody for their votes and thoughts. It seems that the overwhemling consensus is that it's nothing to worry about.

I think we'll leave it the way it is, and I will go worry about the other 147 things that are on my priority list.

Best regards,
Lee Jones

PokerStars Poker Room Manager