I've voted for 20 - Even though I always buy in for the maximum, or enough to cover everyone at the table, short-stacking is a legitimate way of playing cash, and taking that away altogether would be a bad thing IMO. However, 10BB just means you're basically playing shove or fold like you would in a tourney until you double up a couple of times and get a decent stack. If you want that, then, err, go play a tourney! For HU, I think it should be slightly higher than 20 - I'd suggest 40. As someone else already pointed out, if your opponent only pulls up with a short stack, then even if you beat them you can still lose money because of rake. I'll personally sit out when someone pulls up with a tiny stack at a HU cash table, and let them know why I'm sat out in chat. As I can only lose money, it makes no sense for me to play these people. Their choice whether they pull up with more, or leave the table. Posted by EvilPingu
Yeah I agree with the hu situation as it matters not a jot cos you can simply sit out, I dont play hu though and if a shortstack sits to the left of me I have to imediatly start to ditch small suited conectors as you dont have the odds to speculate so in essence strangely the shortstack can sometimes dictate the game.
Whatever happens can we have every table the same. It makes multi tabling much harder if one table is one type and another is different. Sky doesnt have enough liquidity to have a decent amount of tables running of all different types. Keep it simple 20 or 30 bb min 100bb max. Short stacks will be happy at that and am sure deeper stack players will be too. Posted by ajs4385
+1 to this. Please do not spread the small player base even thinner over capped and none capped.
I think there was a nice balance when there was just normal tables and master cash tables.
I don't particularly care about the min pull-up because the players who do are just playing the "£5, £10, £20 cash game" and mostly paying pros wages but they don't know it as they only ever remember the 200bb+ pots they play... If it was raised to 20bb I reckon they'd all just drop down...
I voted for 20bb, all the regs were moaning for 40bb+ tables on the two big american sites but when they introduced them the games became significantly harder.
The only reason to increase the minimum buying would be to get rid of the pro shortstackers who imo abuse the system, but i have not seen any good pro shortstackers on Sky Poker at the lower limits (maybe there's lots on the higher limits?), most players i see playing with a 20bb stack are recreational players who want to play in the biggest game they can afford and gamble it up, what's wrong with that?
I have voted 20bb. Many people on here will have voted higher as the people on the forums are poker enthusists wanting a deeper stack game. However, poker enthusiasts generally dont spend money on playing poker. The poker economy is funded by gamlers who want to have fun and dont care about strategy. I would prefer these players to buy in for a full stack, but the majority dont. They want to buy in shorter and spin it up. Therefore a low buy in for each table is required. However, 10bb is too low, there is no real skill in poker if you or your opponents have 10bb or less (Thats why I dont play tournaments). Any site should be set up with the gambler in mind first and the reg second. For the past few years sites/networks have been chasing the regular players. Now that is changing many sites are now chaning the rewards for regular players and focusing in on attracting gamblers who spend money. As its took them a few years to realise that poker is like any other business and needs people who spend money to survive. I am slightly concerned that Sky are starting to go down the route that many other networks are abandoning and going after regular players with this rake race. It may boost traffic in the short term but is detremntal in the long term to the site. As gamblers will get eaten alive with a reg to gambler ratio of 5 to 1 on every table. They will stop playing if they are not getting value for money from their deposit. I would prefer if a 3d tv got sent to the guy who funded £10/£20 omaha last night rather than the person with the most points. Posted by ajs4385
Clearly, most people think somewhere between 20/40 is ok and doesnt hold to the veiw I have of full stack.
What about my suggestion of the possibility of a player that objects to this having the option to reduce? Would someone who supports lets say a 30 pound buy in on a £100 max table please comment.
Would the player who dont mind £30 buy in on a £100 table object to a counter tactic?
At this point in time the only option is to sit out or leave the table.
Please dont get caught up in thinking that the industry standard as the industry standerd might be wrong and I can give lots of examples of that as most people will know.
We very rearly change anything because most people dont try.
My gut instinct tells me its wrong and the industry standerd just doesnt mean anything other than tuff luck thats the way it is.
The purest form of poker an original is a home game and I would put money on you guys who say its ok online would tell the guy to get on his bike. Why dont they let people buy in to the wsop shortstacked?? The answer is that they would be aiming to win the top prize without contributing thier fair share and yet we allow this in our cash games.
20 is fine. This rake race/happy hour/reg infested tbls is started to bore me silly though. Posted by pryce6
this /\. I have a big long list of reasons why happy hour is a bad thing for everyone but don't quite have the energy for a 1k word post just yet.. maybe in time though. Hopefully before all of the fish go broke and the regs are just paying rake between themselves...
In Response to Re: Cash Tables - Minimum Buy-in : this /\. I have a big long list of reasons why happy hour is a bad thing for everyone but don't quite have the energy for a 1k word post just yet.. maybe in time though. Hopefully before all of the fish go broke and the regs are just paying rake between themselves... Posted by GLifUlose
Why can't you back yourselves to win money off eachother?
They're only 50/100 nl regs, they must be exploitable?
Obv makes sense to look for fish etc but if there aren't any is it really that big a disaster at the lower/mid stakes on sky? U just have to 'play' different?
It's not like it's the 6 best players in the World playing against eachother so it's a total stalemate? Or is it?
I understand if you sat at a table with 5 50/100nl regs you would be the fish at the table, so it's slightly different for you. But playing against 5 people who literally only put money in the pot when they have aces, kings or a set is extremely boring and although I'm going to make a profit it's hard to get enough AAvKK or set over set encounters in my favour to do my shopping at waitrose this month.
Why do you have to post stupid stuff Doh. I understand if you sat at a table with 5 50/100nl regs you would be the fish at the table, so it's slightly different for you. But playing against 5 people who literally only put money in the pot when they have aces, kings or a set is extremely boring and although I'm going to make a profit it's hard to get enough AAvKK or set over set encounters in my favour to do my shopping at waitrose this month. Posted by pryce6
too boring or too hard? Figure something out, if they're that bad I'm sure there's a way to do it.
You'll get the same amount as they do presumably, that's not how you expect to make your money playing cash surely. If it is doesn't that make you as bad as 'them' ?
In Response to Re: Cash Tables - Minimum Buy-in : too boring or too hard? Figure something out, if they're that bad I'm sure there's a way to do it. You'll get the same amount as they do presumably, that's not how you expect to make your money playing cash surely. If it is doesn't that make you as bad as 'them' ? Posted by DOHHHHHHH
lol @ dohh argueing about playing with regs when you avoid them like the plague and have been at 30nl for your life without having the balls to move up
like pryce said you will always win small it's just a matter if you can be bothered to grind for it
Comments
Even if you don't want to comment, do please vote.
Thanks
Sky Poker
If your keeping it at ten you might aswell allow one.
Industry standard is 20 or more i think
I voted for 20bb, all the regs were moaning for 40bb+ tables on the two big american sites but when they introduced them the games became significantly harder.
The only reason to increase the minimum buying would be to get rid of the pro shortstackers who imo abuse the system, but i have not seen any good pro shortstackers on Sky Poker at the lower limits (maybe there's lots on the higher limits?), most players i see playing with a 20bb stack are recreational players who want to play in the biggest game they can afford and gamble it up, what's wrong with that?
What about my suggestion of the possibility of a player that objects to this having the option to reduce?
Would someone who supports lets say a 30 pound buy in on a £100 max table please comment.
Would the player who dont mind £30 buy in on a £100 table object to a counter tactic?
At this point in time the only option is to sit out or leave the table.
Please dont get caught up in thinking that the industry standard as the industry standerd might be wrong and I can give lots of examples of that as most people will know.
We very rearly change anything because most people dont try.
My gut instinct tells me its wrong and the industry standerd just doesnt mean anything other than tuff luck thats the way it is.
The purest form of poker an original is a home game and I would put money on you guys who say its ok online would tell the guy to get on his bike.
Why dont they let people buy in to the wsop shortstacked?? The answer is that they would be aiming to win the top prize without contributing thier fair share and yet we allow this in our cash games.
This rake race/happy hour/reg infested tbls has started to bore me silly though.
I understand if you sat at a table with 5 50/100nl regs you would be the fish at the table, so it's slightly different for you. But playing against 5 people who literally only put money in the pot when they have aces, kings or a set is extremely boring and although I'm going to make a profit it's hard to get enough AAvKK or set over set encounters in my favour to do my shopping at waitrose this month.
like pryce said you will always win small it's just a matter if you can be bothered to grind for it