PokerStars 40bb CAP Tables

    • teAmeY
      teAmeY
      Bronze
      Dabei seit: 03.04.2007 Beiträge: 670
      Hallo,

      in der heutigen VIP-Mail von PokerStars heißt es ja, dass irgendwann in der ersten Hälfte des Jahres 40bb CAP Tables eingeführt werden sollen. Von den aktuellen 20bb CAP-Tables ist leider nicht die Rede, also kann man davon ausgehen, dass diese Tische neben den normalen/deep und 20bb-CAP Tischen noch zusätzlichen eingeführt werden.

      In der eMail wurde des weiteren noch mal die Änderung der Fast/Normal-Speed-Tischen erwähnt und damit begründet bzw. mit dem Ziel, dass die Lobby dadurch für die Recreational-Player übersichtlicher wird. Mit der Einführung einer weiteren Tischart, den 40bb CAP-Tischen, widerspricht sich PokerStars damit aber doch selber, wodurch ich mir eigentlich doch nicht vorstellen kann, dass diese tatsächlich so noch zusätzlich eingeführt werden. Ganz zu schweigen von einer weiteren relativen Playerpool-Splittung.

      Wäre es da nicht vielleicht sinnvoll irgendwie einen Kompromiss der CAP-Tables wie z.B. 30bb zu finden? Natürlich wären mir weiterhin 20bb CAP-Tables lieber, aber wenn man sich jetzt schon das Verhältnis zu den normalen Tischen ansieht, könnte man sich bei einer weiteren Einführung tatsächlich um den Traffic sorgen machen. Ideal wäre natürlich sowas wie die alten 20-50bb Tische, womit ja aber das Ziel, Ratholing zu umgehen, verfehlt wird.

      Also was wäre eurer Meinung die beste Lösung? Findet ihr das gut? Oder eh alles scheiß egal weil ZOOM?

      lG teAmeY
  • 3 Antworten
    • pittsen
      pittsen
      Einsteiger
      Dabei seit: 25.05.2007 Beiträge: 17
      GAME STRUCTURE CHANGES We have recently implemented changes to our stud ante/bring-in structures after extensive consultation with our players. Feedback has overall been positive. There are no longer ‘fast’ and ‘normal’ game speeds for ring game tables. All tables for each table type now have the same rules covering time to act, which now vary based on the game situation. Players will have less time to act on the initial street if they are not facing a raise, compared to other actions at the same table. Overall, the new universal speed is somewhere between the two old table speeds. The goal of this change is to improve the recreational player’s experience by creating a simpler lobby. This is especially true when viewing the lobby in ‘Group Tables’ mode, as there are now far fewer table types in the list. More liquidity per game type is a nice additional benefit. After initially thinking we would deploy different timing for PLO than for NLHE, we reversed course and ended up keeping them the same. We reviewed average time taken per action for PLO and NLHE grinders and found that there was only a very small difference. PLO regulars play far fewer concurrent tables on average than NLHE regulars, already adjusting for the additional time it takes on average to make PLO decisions. Additionally, a higher percentage of PLO decisions are made post-flop, which is already receiving extra time under the new system. We have changed the minimum buy-in from 30bb to 40bb for our standard PLO and PLO/8 tables. This change comes after consulting with PLO players and independently reviewing the current state of the games. While some players did want an even higher minimum buy-in, we believe that the 40bb minimum combined with the upcoming ratholing restrictions will result in a much improved playing environment that will meet the needs of most players. The minimum buy-in amount is a hot topic for all NL and PL games. We do receive many requests to increase the minimum buy-in on standard tables above 40bb. Some suggest that we could then deploy 40bb CAP tables, but we do not want to split liquidity further by introducing yet another game type. We do not plan to remove the ability to buy in for 40bb. Wanting everyone to play with deeper stacks is a different desire than not wanting players to rathole. Stopping ratholing will result in deeper stacks on average, so it will please some of the people who want to play with deeper average stacks. But forcing non-ratholing players who want to buy in for 40bb to play deeper is not under consideration. I understand that there are a lot of people who prefer playing with 100bb. I happen to be one of them. However, I recognize that this is not because 100bb is objectively a perfect amount to play poker with. In fact, it was most likely chosen as the max buy-in on some online poker sites 10 years ago simply because it is a round number and because there was a desire to limit how much could be lost on a single hand so that players didn't go completely broke too quickly. The deeper the stack, the more complex the set of possible decision trees, and the more strategic depth there is to the game. But this doesn't stop at 100bb, it's true for 200bb and then 300bb and then 400bb. It's true of 40bb compared to 20bb. The truth is that the maximum buy-in was set to 100bb several years ago. Common understanding at that time was that the way to maximize your profit was to buy in for the maximum in order to extract the maximum value from your good hands. Given the skill level of the average player at that point, maybe this was good advice. So everyone got used to 100bb stacks. It's what many people are simply used to playing, and it's what they think of when they think of online ring game play. But perhaps the game has now evolved such that a different stack size is considered a viable alternative or even optimal. Current stack size preferences may be out of date in a few years as strategies evolve. These things change over time. The people who are buying in for 40bb at the games now may be doing so because they think it provides the best opportunity to win, much the same reason that many people learned to buy in for 100bb years ago. These players have been building a preference for this stack size, much like 100bb players built a preference for theirs, and much like 20bb players built a preference for 20bb. If you take ratholing out of the equation, it's hard to make an objective case for one over another from our perspective. It doesn't make sense to force one set of customers who are used to 40bb stack sizes to adjust to please another set of customers who are used to 100bb stack sizes. There is no justification for playing favorites here. That many players are used to a stack size is not a bad reason to offer games that suit them. It makes sense to serve our customers! We do actually offer games in which players who want to play for 100bb can do so: deep tables. Some players do indeed enjoy these games. If stack size is most important to you, I suggest you check them out. For most regulars, it turns out that stack size isn't most important. It's more important that they win. We are not going to stack the rules to line up your preferred opponents and force them to play by your preferred rules. You can pick your pool of opponents or you can pick your stack size (unless you like 21-39 bb!), but you can't force your preferred opponent pool to play your game and neither should we. Over time it will always be necessary for a winning player to adapt. Opponents change, play styles evolve, software changes. A player who is successful one year who remains static will very likely be far less successful three years later. Not all winning players who work on adapting will always continue to win, but pretty much all winning players who keep winning over a long period of time will have adapted to some degree. This is the nature of poker; it always has been and probably always will be that way.


      Quelle:
      http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=37090282&postcount=326

      ->da steht doch das sie kein 40bb-CAP machen wollen oder hast du ne andere bekommen? 20bb-cap sollte also nicht beeinflusst werden...
    • teAmeY
      teAmeY
      Bronze
      Dabei seit: 03.04.2007 Beiträge: 670
      Nein hast schon recht. War gestern irgendwie neben der Spur. Habe folgendes in dem Moment irgendwie falsch interpretiert:

      RATHOLING
      ..The constant leaving and joining of tables adds up to having a negative impact on the playing experience of opponents. Regular ring game tables are meant to offer more stable line-ups of opponents, as opposed to Zoom where opponents change more regularly. The constant resetting of stacks to 40bb keeps effective stacks pegged at the low end of the 40-100bb buy-in range at our standard tables, sometimes to the extreme of turning tables into effectively 40bb CAP tables, contrary to the intention and labelling. Recreational players would prefer to be able to have the opportunity to win their money back after losing a pot, but instead they see it leave the table immediately, time after time.

      We are going to take action to limit ratholing activity at our ring games. Our current plan is to address this issue during the first half of the year and it is a top priority to act within this timeframe. I do not anticipate delay.

      It is a great challenge to define a solution that allows acceptable limited instances of ratholing but stops systematic ratholing...


      Aber irgend eine Änderung wird ja dennoch kommen. Können wir mal gespannt sein.
    • Poker5521
      Poker5521
      Bronze
      Dabei seit: 18.07.2012 Beiträge: 871
      Sorry, post kann gelöscht werden.

      MfG: Poker5521