Petition to Remove <50bb Buyins From Party Skins (xposted)

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look at it as an opportunity to learn how to play correctly with short stacks at your table. Don't hate the playa...

[/ QUOTE ]

If i have 200BB's covered on my right and a 20BB monkey on my left i am forced to sacrifice +EV opportunities to facilitate their desire to play no-thinkum poker. this situation cannot be played "correctly" against the shortstack as the real proper strategy involves maximizing the sum of my EV's against both players, which almost always means sacrificing some optimal gameplay to the damn shortstack.

fim

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least its +EV for one of us.

[BadVoodooX]

Sorry but that's not a good enough argument. Say Mahatma sits down on your left. That probably drops your EV too so should he be banned because he's a better player?

Yes a short stack alters the correct play just like a hyper aggro player screws with the table dynamic too but pushing you out of your comfort zone there isn't a good reason why they shouldn't be able do this.

Are you advocating that when someone loses their way down to under 50bb they should be kicked?

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry but that's not a good enough argument. Say Mahatma sits down on your left. That probably drops your EV too so should he be banned because he's a better player?

Yes a short stack alters the correct play just like a hyper aggro player screws with the table dynamic too but other than pushing you out of your comfort zone there isn't a good reason why they shouldn't be able do this.

Are you advocating that when someone loses their way down to under 50bb they should be kicked?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a huge difference between the analogy you made and my argument. Mahatma is a more experienced player who is obviously better than me. he wins because he is better at playing poker than i am. these players lose less because they have read a book which, admittedly, exploits a mistake online sites made when setting up their games.

As for kicking someone, that's silly. there is a reason B&amp;M poker rooms allow you to buyin full and then do short buys should you desire. you should be allowed one short buy and that's it.

another argument is that some fish are playing way way above their BR's here. a lot of players are buying in for 20 on a 200 BR at a NL 100 game because they can't stand the "bad players" at 25NL. it gives them tons of variance, but ultimately their money would last longer and get raked more at 25.

fim

[BadVoodooX]

Fair enough, if you want to discuss it on a serious level as a distortion of the game then ok, but the fact it negatively impacts your EV shouldn't be relevant when considering whether it should be treated as legal or not, fairness to all players should be the standard for that.

I fail to see how less of their $ going to rake is a negative, the more of it that goes to PP, the less there is for all the players, those bottom feeders at 25nl wind up sending an awful lot of money up the poker food chain but once it goes to PP in rake it's gone for good.

I haven't been on the PP 10/20 tables for a month or so, how widespread is this becoming? I read somewhere there was a book that advocated this strategy but as little as a month or two ago there were 3 or 4 fish short buying for every 'squirrel' playing tight short stack pair poker.

[Rotating Rabbit]

I agree with the (I think) majority in that for every irritating shortstacker who knows how to play, there are 4 donks.

But I do think its lame nonetheless.

As with disconnect protect, perhaps a good direction to go in, in my opinion, is have some tables with max 50bb buy-in instead of 25?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry but that's not a good enough argument. Say Mahatma sits down on your left. That probably drops your EV too so should he be banned because he's a better player?

Yes a short stack alters the correct play just like a hyper aggro player screws with the table dynamic too but other than pushing you out of your comfort zone there isn't a good reason why they shouldn't be able do this.

Are you advocating that when someone loses their way down to under 50bb they should be kicked?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a huge difference between the analogy you made and my argument. Mahatma is a more experienced player who is obviously better than me. he wins because he is better at playing poker than i am. these players lose less because they have read a book which, admittedly, exploits a mistake online sites made when setting up their games.

As for kicking someone, that's silly. there is a reason B&amp;M poker rooms allow you to buyin full and then do short buys should you desire. you should be allowed one short buy and that's it.

another argument is that some fish are playing way way above their BR's here. a lot of players are buying in for 20 on a 200 BR at a NL 100 game because they can't stand the "bad players" at 25NL. it gives them tons of variance, but ultimately their money would last longer and get raked more at 25.

fim

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the minimum buy in at limit tables?

[barongreenback]

A more realistic solution will be to have 2 categories of games. One with min buy in, one without. It's reasonable to want to play short for those attracted to tourney style NL but it shouldn't spoil deep stack games.

James

[okayplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
It's reasonable to want to play short for those attracted to tourney style NL but it shouldn't spoil deep stack games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Play SnGs.

Honestly, that is exactly what these guys are doing, is turning the games into a SnG when they play. Like I said before, the main problem I have is when players buy in short and then leave (after a win) and re buy. If they would limit the time that they can "re-sit" to like 2hrs, I wouldn't mind as much.

Alot of people say "what's wrong with buying in for 40-50BBs?" and I say nothing. I don't really mind a player buying in for 40-50BBs (you can still - for the most part - play regular poker against these guys), but when they buy in for 20BBs and then double up and leave and re-sit, I think that is cheap and an exploitation of the sites' flaws.

It does affect the game. I mean if a short stack raises 5xBBs with 20BB behind, it's basically push or fold, and that's a SnG.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
A more realistic solution will be to have 2 categories of games. One with min buy in, one without. It's reasonable to want to play short for those attracted to tourney style NL but it shouldn't spoil deep stack games.

James

[/ QUOTE ]

Plus it's a way for lower limit players to get their feet wet at the higher stakes games. Some will make it and some will bust/drop back down. However they may never try if they don't have a chance to buy in short at first to get their feet wet, or give up on higher stakes after loosing a stack or two. Your never going to have a chance to bust me if I don't have the option of buying in short and playing that way to get comfortable in bigger games than I am used to playing.

[fsuplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
probably most people don't care, I love when people buy in to my games short. people buying in short pretty much fall in two categories:
1) fish
2) people who are playing a short stack to play tight and hope nobody notices and gives them action.

since we all know how to deal with both these styles and it's easy to tell them apart I don't think it's really a big deal.

--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

i couldnt agree more.

there are several short buyers at the big party games who i love to see at the table. they usually play kinda bad.