blonde poker forum

we all know that balancing in a casino is random, and on most sites it is too. but why on earth does pokerstars keep putting the big stacks on 1 table and the short stacks on another.
this is a huge disadvantage to the big stacks who have built there stacks up to find that all though 2nd chip leader in a tourny they face getting kicked out by the chip leader by one wrong placed bet or call

while the shorter stacks find they can get more play than they should and ladder climb while the big stacks battle it out.

It's a mystery to me too Ironside.

It happens all the time on Laddies too.

It's not random in Nottingham. They move the short stack. The effect quite often is that a 'seat of death' will develop as short stack after short stack arrive and make their stand. Daft system.

Walsall take the big blind. Seems to work okay.

What I really couldn't stand about nottingham is that when a table split, you weren't given random seats. Instead people run to the table to stay away from the big blind. Now that is daft.

I got move recently and there were two seats free. one was next to post BB and the other was the button but sat between two big stacks who were having a verbal battle as I walked over. I elected to have them both to my right and post the BB and I was looked at like an idiot. Good move I thought.

should surely be BB moves and post BB 1st hand at new table (either immediately or sit out til it's due)

Another peculiarity I found at Nottingham was HU at the end of a tourney once It was ruled that the button posted the BB. The card room supervisor and every regular player who was asked agreed that was correct. I didn't make a scene and played it their way and won anyway but goes to show how often the moneys chopped at nottingham if they didn't know how HU worked. I gather it's been sorted out now but it made for an interesting HU match.

It is all sorted out now... The button posts the BB!

Well this started as a good point, well made, by Ironside about online table balancing, about which, so far as I can tell, nobody understands the logic. And it's ended up as another criticism of my beloved but beleagured Notts! I shall make a general post about Notts elsewhere on this forum shortly, which I hope will be "balanced", but insofar as Notts moving the short stack, it has to be said, it is rather bizarre.

The table short stack is chosen to be moved at Notts, & as AdamM points out, he can then CHOOSE which seat he takes at the table he is moved to. Given the propensity for poker players to behave like kids, this leads to the most unseemly scramble for the so called "best seat", with grown men often running the length of the card room, pushing & shoving each other, hands full of chips (so that excludes me) to get to the best seat first! Then there follows the regular argument - "I want to sit there" - "but there is no seat there" - "oh yes there is", - "oh no there's not"........

Indeed, I take it one stage further - and you would HAVE to be a Notts regular to understand THIS......

Who, by definition, is the table short stack? The one with the smallest stack, I hear the wise guys say. Don't be silly. Try losing your ENTIRE stack during the rebuys, at the very moment they ask for the short stack to move. Do you move when the hand finishes? Nope! if you rebuy, then you can stay, if someone else "only" has 800! And the guy with 800, of course, does not have the right to rebuy, so he gets moved. How unfair is THAT?
 
Almost every other Casino uses the "Big Blind Must Move" method, &, even better, TELLS the player which seat he has been allocated & at which table. This is pretty uniform right across Europe. Except in Notts.......So why do Notts do it that way? Obvious. Because they always have.

But we will discuss Notts in general in a separate post, & I hope it will address both sides of the argument.

But Ironside's point was about ONLINE table balancing. Anyone know the answer to THAT question?

PokerStars balancing. I guess its random? But I did notice when I played a lot of tournies there that they would move a "sitting out" player a lot. In fact I tried to get off a tricky table by pressing sit out when I saw during a hand that the tables were about to be balanced. I tried 4 times and it worked 3 times! (The other time another busted and the whole table busted!). Obviously my sample size was/is statistically small but it was freaky.

Thanks Simon, but, & I think you will agree, that does not answer the question. It's like all these idiots who say that online poker is bent because they saw AA get beat twice in one night, it does not prove anything.

I know a guy who works for a major online card room, & I shall write to him today & ask the question.

Watch this space.....

nightfly, it's good of you to register just to answer my post but in heads up play the button posts the small blind speaks first before the flop. It was argued on the night that was a disadvantage but by speaking first you get first opportunity to pick up the blinds. more advantageous than having the most money in and having to call/raise a bet.

It annoys the hell out of me on InterPoker (crypto site so thats the same network as Laddies) ... I lose the will to become a big stack, instead staying middle of the road to bully the short stacks.

The button in an idiots game posts the BB! You don't play in idiots games do you?

I know that Ladbrokes have openly admitted that they move players to tables based on their stack size. So all the big stacks go together and all the shorts together. I have been moved when table chip leader and running over the table and suddenly find myself on a new table with 5 stacks larger than mine ! This is most annoying when the tourney pays top ten, and you are 5 or 6 handed on the bubble, and you see 5 short stacks passing the blinds on the other table with no big stack to bully them.

The only reason I can see for this is that it was easier for the developers to write software that just took a chip count and moved it to a table with the nearest average. They would stay away from doing it randomly as online sites haven't worked out how do "random" yet ;D

Thanks "owner", & welcome to blonde.


"....Ladbrokes have openly admitted that they move players based upon their stack size...."

Where did they "openly admit" that?

What I am really asking, I guess, is that surely the methodology by which tables are balanced MUST be printed somewhere as part of their (or anyone else's) Tournament Rules. Ladbrokes, or PokerStars, cannot just make it up as they go along, & I am as sure as hell they do not. So we just have to find the bit where they tell us how they do it. I have written to "my man" today asking how PokerStars do it.

The button in an idiots game posts the BB! You don't play in idiots games do you?

It was the Nottingham Galas Friday 20 PLHE game

Someone asked the question on the Laddies forum and a PM came on and said that the software worked that way, as it was "the fairest way to do it"  fair on who though ?

Hi Guys. Interesting debate.
I think the official line on table balancing at PokerStars answers most of the queries.

"There are two different times a player may be moved in a tournament.
A single player may be moved by himself to correct a table imbalance,
or an entire table may be "broken up" and distributed to the empty
seats at other tables.  

A table break happens as soon as enough empty seats are available to
eliminate one table from play. If your table is chosen to be broken,
the re-seating algorithm is as it would be in a brick and mortar
room.  It is completely random, as if seat cards were thrown face
down in the middle of the table.

While this does mean that it may be possible to move right back into
the blinds having just paid them, it also means you can move
from "under the gun" to a late position.  All players are subject to
the same random chance in such a move.

When a player is chosen to be moved individually (such as one table
has only 7 players, while others have nine), we try to minimize the
number of moves. If possible, the system tries to choose a player who
has been moved less than others, or to choose a sitting out player.

Once the player to be moved is chosen, we try to find a seat available
for that player that has a relative position to the button close to
the one that the player was at previously.

In summary, there are two fundamental goals that the table balancing
system achieves, and they are:

a) to maintain blind position
b) to distribute movement evenly between players."

I know this method does receive positive feedback in the main. Of course it can mean that two big stacks can be next to each other but that can also happen in a card room. My thoughts are that online gaming sites are there to try and 'replicate' what happens in a card room.

Excellent post jbsc.

I wonder why online rooms don't do more to protect themselves from the nonsense that is thrown at them almost daily?

This was a typical example, in which it was claimed that Stars discriminated against certain players or players in certain situations, i.e. low stacks or deep stacks. But in fact all the allegations were untrue, with no substance at all. So why don't you guys defend yourselves more rigorously? This thread was going down the well trodden path of "the online card rooms have shafted us again" until I asked you to state the facts. You need a PR Department, methinks!

Meanwhile, ready the lynch mob for the next allegation that online poker is bent......

hmmm maybe my little theory has legs? ::)

i found this line very intresting

i wrote them an email over a year ago asking why they dont have a minimium chip (they do 1$) in tournys, then after the chip is no longer needed race of the smaller chips, this would save that horrid crass play of raising 666 or 891 or what ever,

the reply i got was that they werent trying to be like a real casino who had to race off the smaller chips
to allow stacks to be managable

Thanks for that reference jbsc. This was something I wondered about.

I suppose on stars it can look more unbalanced because the number of runners that they get means that in latter stages the leaders will have massive stacks in comarison to those at the other end (like me usually).

On a similar theme the one I hate is when the site seems to not break the table when it can. Ive seen this on Pacific where you have, for instance, all the tables with 7 or 8 players on when there is clearly the opportunity to break a table. Again as I usually have low chips this aint good for me!!!! lol.

Where the online sites cant mirror the 'real world' is when you do move and notice it's your BB on the new table it's harder to suddenly have to tie your shoelace or develop a sudden limp!  (joking!  honest!)

Hi Ironside. Note the last part is not an official line form PS, that is why i said it was "MY THOUGHTS!"

hi again

only me

i have checked whole of pokerstars.com website can find no mention of the ruling you quoted about balancing

Still does not explain why they constantly put all the big stacks together on Ladbrokes.

It seems to be built into the software.

This was the PM's reply on the laddies forum. Less than scientific explanation ...

"we employ a system of 'table balancing' in order to prevent any player being moved to a table and being given a massive chip advantage over others"

Ahh, the conspiracy theorists are awake. The games bent. Obvious really.

To comment on the chip race thing:

There is no need for chip races online, but they are necessary offline. Should we have them online because they do offline? Or is it better to get rid of them?

Do we really want the online sites to copy the weaknesses of the b&m card rooms when they can be improved upon?

I'd get rid of the chip races as it seems fairer to me that noone loses (or gains) any chips due to an unnecessary race.

well i like the mimium chip it gies it a more professional look even if they dont race off the chips

Jeez, you are in trouble now bongo, you gonna get attacked on TWO fronts......

Your online argument - whatever it may be - will not satisfy the conspiracy theorists. Online Poker is bent, surely you know that? Stars make millions of $$$'s per day, Party too. Why just count it & bank it, when you could risk all by fiddling a bit more? I mean, it's obvious, surely. By ingeniously putting all the low stacks together, & all the big stacks together, the online card-room makes a heap more money. How? Err.......well, they aint got to that bit yet, but they will, I promise, some bright spark will post his logic up here shortly.......

And abandoning the chip race in Live Poker? Well that's easy enough, but as long as some folks absolutely INSIST on laboriously counting out & using the lowest denom chips so long as they are on the table, then the Casinos really do need to get the low-denom chips off, otherwise it takes forever to check & count every bet & pot.

Tikay, Hope you are not branding me a conspiracy theorist ! I spend hours arguing with those idiots.  That quote was from laddies themselves though.  I object to any balancing not being done in a Random way (By software or by a "real" TD).

Why should Laddies decide that a player should not have a massive chip advantage over others at the table, he has (we assume) played well to gain that stack (Unless he knows how to crack the RNG ?  ..... only joking)

tikay i have never said that the unfairness of the balancing was a conspiracy therory or that any malace was meant by it

but last night in a 900+ player tourny with 20 tables left 3 of the top 4 stacks were all on the same table

with 3 tables left there were 2 tables with average stack of about 55k other table had average of about 25k

in the omaha hi lo tourny i played in the early hours of the morning it was the same

infact every time i get deep into astars event its the same

small stacks left to pass chips and ladder climb while the big stacks have to battle

I understand why this is needed in live poker, but given that the same can't happen online it would seem that they aren't needed. In this case should we have them?

Should online poker try to mimic offline poker when it is possible to do things differently but better?

So no chance it could be, err......coincidence??!!

That's what "random" does, it produces weird coincidences. But they happen in real life, too.

I was playing a guy online today in a heads-Up match, & I was in a hopeless hole, all in with Q6 off v his AQ suited. I four flushed it with my 6 & the geezer went loopy, "b*** ****, this site is ****" etc. He never stopped moaning about it. Then I trapped him a treat with AK v his A-2, & the flop came J-2-2.........

In the first instance, the site was fixed. In the second - well, he went very quiet......!

Bongo. I agree, they (chip races) ain't needed online, but I seem to recall that someone said they were.

Owner - be careful here. When taking a SINGLE player off a table, it MUST NOT be random, it must be to a pre-agreed method. When breaking a complete table, yes, it MUST be random. But when, as often happens, all the big stacks end up on the same table, I am afraid that the same old accusations are gonna be trotted out.

I didnt say it was on the PokerStars web site Ironside!!

As Tikay said, the sites have NOTHING to gain by putting big stacks together in a tourney, not a single thing. You say it happens a lot, well, I lose with AA a lot. At least I think I do. Statistically I actually win about 85% of the time with AA but, I remember the times I dont. Hell, one was J3o. Im not sure I could tell you what I beat with my AA though.........

if its not on the website where did you get your info from

otherwise i would think they use the same balancing that ladbrookes have openly admited too

Tikay you need to calm down mate !

It is common knowledge to anyone who plays tournaments on Ladbrokes,

that most of the large stacks end up on the same table when it gets down to the last few tables.

It is a glitch that I would like explained.

I play 40/50 hors a week online so if I thought it was crooked I would vote with my feet

and give it a miss like I do Nottingham Gala.

Now if you want to talk about crooked let's start a thread about that !

 ;)

Well write & ask them Karabiner! It's not rocket science......

I don't know anyone in Ladbrokes, or else I'd ask them for you. And I don't play on Ladbrokes.

All I said was that it is a mystery to me, in response to what you at first felt was an interesting post by Ironside.

One of the posters said that Ladbrokes felt that it was the fairest way.

All of a sudden we are all conspiricy theorists !

Isn't the point of forums like this to discuss these issues ?

Ah, sorry Ralph. I made the mistake of saying something controversial. Now, who was it that said such utterances are never made on blonde.....?

no tikay what he is trying to say is that you accused us all of being conspircy theroists when its a know fact that atleast 1 site (ladbrookes) moves all the big stacks together and untill i hear from an offical source i think stars have the same policy.

none of us think that the sites are out to get us we just want to now what there policy is and as its not on there website it's open to question

As far as I can tell the only thing you said that was contorversial today was about train-spotting !

You seem to have the hump about something, I'm not sure what.

 ???

I would like to make an educated well researched comment on this thread, but as i never get deep enough in a bloody tourny to witness anything .... im gonna make like a rock ...and pass !! :)

Ironside,

You HAVE heard from an official Stars source, today, on blonde, that they do NOT have a policy to move all the big stacks together. Trust me - you HAVE. He ain't allowed to "officially" quote Stars policy, but trust me - he HAS. You know I would not mislead you if it were not so.

Ralph,

What's controversial about train-spotting?

I will tell you whats controversial about train spotting ..... that bit where he sh*ts the bed, and the fact that they all speak a foreign bloody language :)   oh you didnt mean the film  :-\

well I do know someone in Ladbrokes, sort of, but if I do write to them they are very selective about which questions they answer, even if you are persistant

Now I, like you tikay, realise that online poker is a licence to print money and dont believe they would ever be daft enough, or have any reason to do anything bent, it just makes no sense

What I dont understand is, why they dont fall over themselves to reasure worried punters that everything is above board, instead of ignoring emails and page after page of comment/questions on their own forum

If they reply once then they will be accussed of bias when they miss one comment. They can't win so they don't bother.  (that's my take anyway).

Doesn't seem to be hurting much.

Sandy

I know what you mean hendrik, but its the whole communication thing that bugs me

today bet 365 were running a $200 multi at 11.30 am

 dont play this site often and there was no information about the blind structure so I rang them up and spoke to a very nice girl who knew nothing at all about poker

she spoke to a poker manager on my behalf and told me that the blinds would increse every 10 to 15 mins

I told her that was too vague and she put me through to a poker manager, but he didnt know

so he told me he would contact Prima Poker and ring me back

He did ring me back but alas no one at Prima Poker knew either.

Wow! You sure you never rang the Gas Board by mistake?

To be fair, if you have a query on Stars & drop them a note, they generally reply (get THIS!) within 2 minutes. Sometimes it's a "holding reply", then folllowed by the proper reply within 4 minutes. You cant whack that.

your lucky you have a known name

if i send an email to stars i am lucky if i get a reply in 24 hours

as for 365 they F***ed up my account that i was trying to link

to them from stan james and i still cant play on there site

so i took my neteller money to another prima site

wish stan james took neteller it would solve so much hassle

HEHEHE Betfair still haven't replied to my complaint after 2 months!!!

Oh and pacific froze my account cuz my email address was used on a different unconnected account, and they won't return my money!!!
They're all crooks  :'(

Hehe, a "known name".....? I don't think so!

Stars have always responded to my notes promptly. If they have not done so to you, well I think you must have been very unlucky. Say what you will about Stars, but in my opinion, their customer Service is exceptional by any standards.

And no, before anyone suggests it, blondepoker do not have ANY commercial relationship whatsoever with PokerStars.

Similar story with Ladbrokes customer service.

Usually they respond within a few hours, but if the query is 'awkward' it is more often than not ignored.

E.G. Some time ago in cash games if you wanted to bring more chips to the table,
you had to sit out for a hand, rather than just topping up to the maximum immediately.

Everyone was moaning about it but they just seemed to ignore the complaints, although they eventually did change it.

Not like me , I know Tikay, but I agree with you about pokerstars customer service.

No complaints at all about them, they've always been spot on with any queries I have had.

i think stars is one of the best sites on the net, second best software with a nice stream of players and a good choice of games, allthough i would like a chance to play PLstud and maybe some RAZZ

but they emails havent always been timely, i would also suggest they get a live help espically since they support deals at the buisness end, some twits even ask me if i want to chop in a STT they say they normally do.

but i think all rules should be posted they have to be in a casino so should be on a top poker site

They DO have "Live Help" Ironside, but maybe at peak times they get a bit overloaded.

no they dont they have live email support

"live help" is live 1 to 1 chatroom

Well my understanding of "Live Help" may be wrong, but if I put in the Chat Box "Cardroom Support Required Please" someone from Stars - "Live Support" I think they call themselves - answers in the Chat Box within a minute or so.

At one time, whenever I "chopped a comp" I always used this method, & they were always in the chat box within 30 seconds or so. But since they introduced the facility for players to transfer funds between themselves, I have made my own arrangements.