pokerstars balancing

[owner]

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 ?

[jbsc7769]

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.

[tikay]

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......

[redsimon]

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


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.

hmmm maybe my little theory has legs?

[Ironside]

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.

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

[TheJagster]

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!)

[jbsc7769]

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

[Ironside]

hi again

only me

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

[Karabiner]

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

It seems to be built into the software.

[owner]

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"

[tikay]

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

[Bongo]

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.

[Ironside]

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

[tikay]

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.

[owner]

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)