I like poker, lets talk poker!

I'm not sure wether I like this tbh. I can see reasons for yay and nay. I think a lot of people (fish) will like the fact that they can stay anonymous. This is proven on Unibet since those tables are way more popular then the reg tables.

On the other hand Poker is a game of information and when we keep losing that info it's kinda sucky. Playing HUDless is no option for me either. Sure in a live game you don't have a HUD, but neither do those guys faces change. You'll still know who is who the next day.

tl;dr I think it might be good for the future of poker, I don't like it.

Originally posted by jawoftheox

Originally posted by CreamyGoodness

We should, however, be able to change our fucking ***ing shitbag avatars on PokerStars!!!!! There's no good reason for them to not allow it!!!

It bothers me and I don't know why.

You can change it.

How? I've tried several times and they won't let me. the pic is not profane or anything. maybe I'll email them.

Anon tables are great and lots of fun to me once in a while. But I don't think that all tables should be made like that as people should have a choice of what they want to play. Game play does differ between the two a little. And we'd have to trust sites 100% on detecting cheaters, there's only one site that could be trusted in that regard.

No HUD is hardly possible to implement, you can use hud on anonymous tables anyway.

Originally posted by RasTweet
Sure in a live game you don't have a HUD

Strictly speaking, mobile HUD apps for live poker already exist

There's been a lot of discussion on banning HUDs... I don't mind them, they allow regs to play at more tables than optimal and convert deposits to rake better

I have pretty big opinions about this so will discuss it in the video blog. Thanks so much so far all.

Day 4

Here is an OLD chart with rake amounts per 100 hands from sites a couple of years ago, ofc things have changed, but not that much

and plo...

This leads me to the question, how should the micros be raked and why? Try and think from a business sense rather than a personal sense.

Thanks.

I don't think the micro's are moneymakers for the site. They have the most tables but I think pokersites make the most money from small and midstakes. If the micro's get a reduction in rake, more people will play on the stakes that are most profitable for the site

In order to play at stakes profitable for the site, regs just need to stop being money nits and bring at least 1% of their entire net worths to the table ♠_evil:

I like the high 'gross' rake - big promos model (with the promos being recreational-oriented like P* are trying to do now) because it encourages all players to hit more tables more often. To a reg, playing poker is a job in the entertainment sector, and like any job, it should be grinded out in order to get a salary (VIP rewards). (I'd really appreciate a premium for starting tables or chatting recs up; but on the contrary, acting too slow and timing out constantly should attract a fine, maybe a hard table limit like 6 is necessary to stop the zzzz - when a reg nits up at 12 tables, he pays far less than twice in rake than if he eurotarded at 6.)

This leads me to the question, how should the micros be raked and why? Try and think from a business sense rather than a personal sense.

micros should be raked equal percentage with higher level because the competition is more or less equal. Reason:

1. It was very easy to get high winrate at the micro but not anymore
2. The winner use his money won to go up the stake. At the higher, most money won withdrawn.
3. Generally speaking, I dont see a single valid reason why average percentage rake on the micros should be higher than higher level.

I'm thinking that maybe micros should be raked lower because then there would be more players winning and moving up stakes. Since micros aren't moneymakers, sites should allow as many ppl as possible to move up and therefore get more money from players that are playing higher stakes.

I suppose one way to see it from their point of view might be that if people recognize they are paying a larger percentage of rake at micros as compared to higher limits, they may deposit and play higher sooner, or at least try to become a better player or win more to get higher, thus paying more rake to the company?
On the negative I don't think making micro players pay the larger percentage encourages any sort of loyalty, which of course then would make it a double edged sword for the site, as if the micro player gets good enough to move up, they may just move out.

I expect some business people will enlighten me but it is all a bit confusing!

i think the assumption that the money will always trickle upwards is not right. There are many who would grind out a particular stake for many years and choose not to move up. Like BlackRain, who is the top NL2 player, he played like 6 mil hands just to earn a few thousand dollars

Day 5

Why 100bbs? Sites all have 100bbs but why do they choose 100bbs? Is 100bbs the best stack size for fish? For regs? If we started poker all over again what stack size would you choose?

Tbh having any other size would suck. All strategy's are made for 100bb so we'd have to learn a completely different game.

Originally posted by RasTweet
Tbh having any other size would suck. All strategy's are made for 100bb so we'd have to learn a completely different game.

I *really* like playing w/ 200+ BB stack, but only if there are just 1 or two other big stacks there.

For some reason, you suddenly have more fold equity.

Perhaps it is because you look like you know what you're doing, or maybe it is just because you can put them out at any time

--VS

Originally posted by VorpalF2F

Originally posted by RasTweet
Tbh having any other size would suck. All strategy's are made for 100bb so we'd have to learn a completely different game.

I *really* like playing w/ 200+ BB stack, but only if there are just 1 or two other big stacks there.

For some reason, you suddenly have more fold equity.

Perhaps it is because you look like you know what you're doing, or maybe it is just because you can put them out at any time

--VS

Yeah but if everyone has 200bb it's a whole different game.

I like being deep as well even though I don't know how to play deep I often make the most money on my deep tables. If everyone is deep it changes because ppl start to study deep play.

It depends and its really good that there is no universal bb size. Most CG tables you can buyin for 20-200bbs.

Different stack sizes requires different playstyle/adjustment imo.

I don't know, because the man said so? Not being smart here - I dunno!

I've heard that the 100 bb size was chosen randomly at the dawn of online poker. That said, it's quite good 6-9-max as it takes almost exactly 4 potsize raises to put the stack in. (That's esp relevant in PLO where one can't raise bigger than potsize.)

Playing 200 bb deep is indeed more complex, and many players, myself included, can't adjust properly. But if that is learned, the winrate from fishes' mistakes skyrockets.

Anything shallower than 50 bb is just a bloody rake bath. It's even worse when people are allowed to buy with 20-30 bb into a game with mostly 100 bb stacks, it gives the shorties a math advantage as biggies clash and make each other fold huge chunks of equity vs the shorties. Huge thanks go to iPoker for finally removing 20-100 bb tables that were prevalent because regs start tables seldom and recs are blind to table attributes.

Very good question. I actually think the best all round stack would be about 60-75bb. Deep enough so that skill would show itself for the pros, shallow enough so that recreational players (like me) never feel really out of their depth/out played/confused. This stack size would be enough so that the loose passive players feel like they are getting value from their stack and conversely the action junkies still get to go all-in a lot.

Generally speaking, deeper stack requires more complex thinking. More complex decisions on all streets. That means more possibility for mistakes but (or rather, hence) also a higher profitability for better players.

Tho I am no cash player, I guess it would discourage fishies to play if the minimum was 200bbs. Tho I do think the opportunity should be given to buy in for even 300bbs or 500 if you want, while leaving like 50bbs a possibility as well.

I think Doyle Brunson said (not sure if it was him, but someone with a similar weight in the poker world) that "Real poker begins 250bbs deep". Well, I fucking hate this "real poker" thing, but you get what he meant.