how about not pressing the sit out button and closing your browser instead-- maybe this way you get 5 mins instead of a few hands to do your number twos?
And another fingamebob--- what exactly is wrong with a short stacker??--- the only thing I can think of is that greedy pigs don't like them-- If someone prefers to start with a short stack, then why not let them?---greedy pigs!!
Mere novice, thanks for your opinions, 1) Reason I suggested this is to stop people buying in for 10 bb. Short stackers are really important for the game but for example last night I sat at 200nl with £200 3 people joined me with £20, it just aint poker. 2) Not really that bothered about this was just an idea I thought would tidy things up. 3) I play 80 to 500nl. There are two reasons for this idea, firstly to make the blinds easy round numbers just to make life easier and secondly I try to get higher games going at the site and I think if there wasnt so many different levels people would get in the habbit of playing 500nl and we could get a few tables going everyday, rather than 1 day 1 300nl table next 1 400nl table etc etc. Posted by ajs4385
can you explain what is, if it "just ain't poker"---- whats wrong with a short stack?
In Response to Re: Changes to cash games : can you explain what is, if it "just ain't poker"---- whats wrong with a short stack? Posted by oynutter
I think the point is that it removes many elements from the game such as "playing down the streets" and large bluffs. If you were playing a tournament and people only had 10bb from the start you (and many others) would be condemning it as a "shove-fest" (or "donk-fest" if you prefer). Similarly if someone buys in for 10bb in a cash game they will generally have no other play than to shove aipf.
It is quite reasonable, imho, to want to have some tables where people who wish to play this way can do so but it is equally valid for some people to want to avoid this sort of player. There is, surely, room on Sky Poker for both and creating tables that satisfy each type of demand would be ideal - so long as the tables are clearly distinguished.
As to the "Sit-Out" issue, there is some confusion over this one, & so it may help if I outline the current parameters for Cash-Game "Sit-Outs". It is currently NOT Time-Based, but "number of hands" based. As I understand it, at present, on 6 seater Cash Tables, if you are "sat-out" FOUR hands in succession, the software terminates your seat, so to speak. So that one is, again, a "balance" thing. You need to allow players time to take a quick PNB, or "comfort break", & that seems about right & fair to most, I would think. Oddly, it would take FAR longer for the Software to recognize this on a 10 seater Cash-Table, but I'm pretty sure your comments related to 6 Seater play. Posted by Tikay10
How does this work on the heads up table. I sat down on one and the other player was sat out. I waited for a while but got bored and went and found a 6-seater. Obviously no hands are being dealt so is it time based? Posted by Patching99
"I don't know" is the short answer, but I'll try & find out. I guess it makes sense for H-U to be treated differently, if for no other reason that hands comes round much quicker than on a 6 or 10 seater Table.
The question/debate on "short stackers" is one I'll leave you guys to debate, it's something that arouses strong passions & "vigorous" debate on every poker Forum on earth, in much the same way as "hit & run" does, & so I keep out of the debates, as I don't feel that strongly either way on either issue.
Except....
It IS the right of any player to play "short", just as it's their right to so-called "hit & run".
So, the challenge for the Service Provider - in this case, Sky Poker, is to find an accommodation that suits both parties without discriminating against either. I fancy that of all the excellent questions & ideas that "ajs" put forward, that one is the most difficult to solve without marginalising a whole bunch of players.
In Response to Re: Changes to cash games : I think the point is that it removes many elements from the game such as "playing down the streets" and large bluffs. If you were playing a tournament and people only had 10bb from the start you (and many others) would be condemning it as a "shove-fest" (or "donk-fest" if you prefer). Similarly if someone buys in for 10bb in a cash game they will generally have no other play than to shove aipf. It is quite reasonable, imho, to want to have some tables where people who wish to play this way can do so but it is equally valid for some people to want to avoid this sort of player. There is, surely, room on Sky Poker for both and creating tables that satisfy each type of demand would be ideal - so long as the tables are clearly distinguished. Posted by MereNovice
1st highlighted point - they may shove but as it's pre flop there is no need to call if we do not wish to
2nd highlighted point - Agreed that a deepstack table at every level with min buy-in would solve this but i think you have to favour more tables with lower min stack and just 1 or 2 to cater for the deep stack purist as this is after all a commercial venture
In Response to Re: Changes to cash games : 1st highlighted point - they may shove but as it's pre flop there is no need to call if we do not wish to 2nd highlighted point - Agreed that a deepstack table at every level with min buy-in would solve this but i think you have to favour more tables with lower min stack and just 1 or 2 to cater for the deep stack purist as this is after all a commercial venture Posted by ACESOVER8s
If myself and Aj have 100 pounds at a 0.5/1 table, as is Ajs style he'll try and nick my bb, I would re-raise him but the guy in the big blind with 10£ might call me allin and force me to show my cards.
People sitting with 10 bbs and getting it in with 7 high is not skill or a game style it's just a quick gamble attempting to spin up. These people would be better off playing lower stakes anyway.
Also with just how short the current minimum is set, it would be very easy for people to sit at every table and shortstack professionally like we used to have problems with on other sites. Yes it's a game style but when it is one based on reducing play, reducing decisions and allowing for no post flop play. I don't see why that should be protected to the detriment of the bulk of players who want to play with proper stacks and play proper poker.
In Response to Re: Changes to cash games : If myself and Aj have 100 pounds at a 0.5/1 table, as is Ajs style he'll try and nick my bb, I would re-raise him but the guy in the big blind with 10£ might call me allin and force me to show my cards. People sitting with 10 bbs and getting it in with 7 high is not skill or a game style it's just a quick gamble attempting to spin up. These people would be better off playing lower stakes anyway. Also with just how short the current minimum is set, it would be very easy for people to sit at every table and shortstack professionally like we used to have problems with on other sites. Yes it's a game style but when it is one based on reducing play, reducing decisions and allowing for no post flop play. I don't see why that should be protected to the detriment of the bulk of players who want to play with proper stacks and play proper poker. Posted by beaneh
As a game of altering your style of play to counteract that of players on your table is it not fair game?
I understand what your saying and i'm not saying that it's not annoying, but as with known Hit n Runners you have the option to sit out when one of these players joins a table. Now if it's just the odd one or two appearing every now and again then this shouldn't be a problem.... however if there are loads of them appearing all over the place then doesn't that suggest that a good proportion of players on the site are enjoying taking a punt on larger stakes with short rolls???? if the later is the case then all i'm saying is you have to cater for what ALL they players want (as far as possible). I think there should be deepstack tables for people that like to play deep though with a much higher min buy in so i do accpet your point
shortstacks are bad for the games. They break tables. If theres a table of 3 SSer's and 3 fullstackers and 2 fullstackers leave, the game will most likely break. If its people with more than 50bbs the game will probably carry on and fill up again. There have been other sites which have been plagued by shortstackers and its ruined their traffic because dont want to play at tables with 4 shortstackers just shoving every other hand. Sky doesnt have a big problem at the moment but it would be a good idea to promote 100bb poker.
Increasing minbuying to 40bb or something would not lose any players but could definitely attract players.
Out of all my original points the two that I think really need to be addresse are short stackers and people sitting out. The others arnt really that important.
Short stackers- Firstly let me say people buying in short looking to have a gamble are very important for the poker economy do not underestimate this. However, 10bb is just too short, if you or your opponent is this short there is hardly any decisions to make and therefore less decisions=less skill (thats why a donkament is called a donkament). I really really DONT want to see short stacking stopped just 10bb is too short, I would love to see it raised to 20 or 30bb minimum buy in, but no more.
Sit out times - As said before sit out time should be 5 minutes, gives you time to have a break or deposit but any less does not give you time, any more is not fair on other players on the table or players waiting to get onto the table.
Thanks for the clarification there AJS. The way you set up the Thread has resulted in a great debate, & I'm sure that as a result, the Suits will study it with some care.
Out of all my original points the two that I think really need to be addresse are short stackers and people sitting out. The others arnt really that important. Short stackers- Firstly let me say people buying in short looking to have a gamble are very important for the poker economy do not underestimate this. However, 10bb is just too short, if you or your opponent is this short there is hardly any decisions to make and therefore less decisions=less skill (thats why a donkament is called a donkament). I really really DONT want to see short stacking stopped just 10bb is too short, I would love to see it raised to 20 or 30bb minimum buy in, but no more. Sit out times - As said before sit out time should be 5 minutes, gives you time to have a break or deposit but any less does not give you time, any more is not fair on other players on the table or players waiting to get onto the table. Posted by ajs4385
Could I ask for a "Stand before next BB button" Its easy to miss if a player leaves or is felted before you get chance to press the stand button. I know its not much but it would help me. Keep Smiling HAL_9000 Posted by HAL_9000
That would be delightful but quite unlikely unfortunately.
FWIW the auto act buttons still don't work. When you tick 'call any' or 'fold' and then action is on you all the buttons come up and you're like well duh I already pressed it.
Could I ask for a "Stand before next BB button" Its easy to miss if a player leaves or is felted before you get chance to press the stand button. I know its not much but it would help me. Keep Smiling HAL_9000 Posted by HAL_9000
Untick the "auto blind" option as soon as the blinds go through you. Then you get the option to sit out before you have to pay the next big blind.
What would be useful is to able to stand UTG immediately after folding. In that way, someone can take the seat before the next hand and be positioned ready to pay the bb. This is particularly useful when there is a queue for the table and for people who wait until the bb before paying the ante.
Thanks for the clarification there AJS. The way you set up the Thread has resulted in a great debate, & I'm sure that as a result, the Suits will study it with some care. Posted by Tikay10
Out of all my original points the two that I think really need to be addresse are short stackers and people sitting out. The others arnt really that important. Short stackers- Firstly let me say people buying in short looking to have a gamble are very important for the poker economy do not underestimate this. However, 10bb is just too short, if you or your opponent is this short there is hardly any decisions to make and therefore less decisions=less skill (thats why a donkament is called a donkament). I really really DONT want to see short stacking stopped just 10bb is too short, I would love to see it raised to 20 or 30bb minimum buy in, but no more. Sit out times - As said before sit out time should be 5 minutes, gives you time to have a break or deposit but any less does not give you time, any more is not fair on other players on the table or players waiting to get onto the table. Posted by ajs4385
great explanation of your point on short stacks AJS and you make a good point. I'm sold lol
Out of all my original points the two that I think really need to be addresse are short stackers and people sitting out. The others arnt really that important. Short stackers- Firstly let me say people buying in short looking to have a gamble are very important for the poker economy do not underestimate this. However, 10bb is just too short, if you or your opponent is this short there is hardly any decisions to make and therefore less decisions=less skill (thats why a donkament is called a donkament). I really really DONT want to see short stacking stopped just 10bb is too short, I would love to see it raised to 20 or 30bb minimum buy in, but no more. Sit out times - As said before sit out time should be 5 minutes, gives you time to have a break or deposit but any less does not give you time, any more is not fair on other players on the table or players waiting to get onto the table. Posted by ajs4385
If someone buys in for ten bbs, they only have this stack for one hand--then they will have 20 bbs or none--the only difference it makes to play is that cards will be shown at showdown -you can sit out for 5 mins already--If you close your browser instead of pressing the sit out button
In Response to Re: Changes to cash games : If someone buys in for ten bbs, they only have this stack for one hand--then they will have 20 bbs or none--the only difference it makes to play is that cards will be shown at showdown -you can sit out for 5 mins already--If you close your browser instead of pressing the sit out button Posted by oynutter
people r giving ideas to improve the site/ make higher traffic, i don't mean to be rude but post something constructive or not at all. please don't bring your personal grudge with ajs onto this thread.
Comments
can you explain what is, if it "just ain't poker"---- whats wrong with a short stack?
If you were playing a tournament and people only had 10bb from the start you (and many others) would be condemning it as a "shove-fest" (or "donk-fest" if you prefer).
Similarly if someone buys in for 10bb in a cash game they will generally have no other play than to shove aipf.
It is quite reasonable, imho, to want to have some tables where people who wish to play this way can do so but it is equally valid for some people to want to avoid this sort of player.
There is, surely, room on Sky Poker for both and creating tables that satisfy each type of demand would be ideal - so long as the tables are clearly distinguished.
Posted by Patching99
"I don't know" is the short answer, but I'll try & find out. I guess it makes sense for H-U to be treated differently, if for no other reason that hands comes round much quicker than on a 6 or 10 seater Table.
The question/debate on "short stackers" is one I'll leave you guys to debate, it's something that arouses strong passions & "vigorous" debate on every poker Forum on earth, in much the same way as "hit & run" does, & so I keep out of the debates, as I don't feel that strongly either way on either issue.
Except....
It IS the right of any player to play "short", just as it's their right to so-called "hit & run".
So, the challenge for the Service Provider - in this case, Sky Poker, is to find an accommodation that suits both parties without discriminating against either. I fancy that of all the excellent questions & ideas that "ajs" put forward, that one is the most difficult to solve without marginalising a whole bunch of players.
Not an easy fix, that one.
2nd highlighted point - Agreed that a deepstack table at every level with min buy-in would solve this but i think you have to favour more tables with lower min stack and just 1 or 2 to cater for the deep stack purist as this is after all a commercial venture
I understand what your saying and i'm not saying that it's not annoying, but as with known Hit n Runners you have the option to sit out when one of these players joins a table. Now if it's just the odd one or two appearing every now and again then this shouldn't be a problem.... however if there are loads of them appearing all over the place then doesn't that suggest that a good proportion of players on the site are enjoying taking a punt on larger stakes with short rolls???? if the later is the case then all i'm saying is you have to cater for what ALL they players want (as far as possible). I think there should be deepstack tables for people that like to play deep though with a much higher min buy in so i do accpet your point
Short stackers- Firstly let me say people buying in short looking to have a gamble are very important for the poker economy do not underestimate this. However, 10bb is just too short, if you or your opponent is this short there is hardly any decisions to make and therefore less decisions=less skill (thats why a donkament is called a donkament). I really really DONT want to see short stacking stopped just 10bb is too short, I would love to see it raised to 20 or 30bb minimum buy in, but no more.
Sit out times - As said before sit out time should be 5 minutes, gives you time to have a break or deposit but any less does not give you time, any more is not fair on other players on the table or players waiting to get onto the table.
Thanks for the clarification there AJS. The way you set up the Thread has resulted in a great debate, & I'm sure that as a result, the Suits will study it with some care.
FWIW the auto act buttons still don't work. When you tick 'call any' or 'fold' and then action is on you all the buttons come up and you're like well duh I already pressed it.
What would be useful is to able to stand UTG immediately after folding. In that way, someone can take the seat before the next hand and be positioned ready to pay the bb. This is particularly useful when there is a queue for the table and for people who wait until the bb before paying the ante.
-you can sit out for 5 mins already--If you close your browser instead of pressing the sit out button
please don't bring your personal grudge with ajs onto this thread.