I don't think it's the same person. This was ~6 weeks ago.

lol. people take shots. people play in bigger games when they're good even if they wouldn't play in them when they're bad. they're not playing too big, they're just being smart professionals.

yeah, the people that broke that 100 game and fought over the 60 seat are retarded. but your argument is equally retarded.

it's basically a prisoner's dilemma type problem, with the exception that if you use the cooperative strategy (keep the game going even when it's bad to maximize overall earn), you're still going to get raped by the vultures who jump in the game when the fish shows up. and the vultures are gonna make more money than the people keeping the game going (assuming similar playing ability) cuz they're making a good hourly playing 60/120 on the side while you're keeping the game going for them. it's easy to say what you're saying when you have infinite money and dont care about making more, but a good professional isn't going to give away money just to keep the game they'd prefer to play when the fish shows up going.

in a healthy poker economy keeping the game going works, because having the guaranteed seat when the fish shows up is worth enough to make up for the lost hourly when the game sucks. but there's always an upper limit to the stakes that can be supported given the supply of fish. it's obviously lower today in limit hold'em than it was 3-5 years ago. if a regular 100/200 isn't sustainable, it's because there aren't enough fish. not because the regulars aren't smart enough to maintain a profitable collusive strategy to keep the game going while they pay $26/hr/person in rake.

Agree with all of that. The implication of "playing too big" was made in the stars sit out thread too. I forone would much rather have semi decent regs taking shots in my games rather than seasoned pros who've already had a lot of success.

What am I missing here? Since when is it against the rules for a fish (or anyone) to leave one game for an open seat in a completely different game? Why should he have to draw for it if he was the first to indicate he wanted it?

Play at your own risk and think a step ahead. Everyone in the 1/2 game should have realized this was a possibility imo.

And acting this way certainly does nothing to help. They're at least not smart enough to create a friendly enough atmosphere for someone who thinks they've got a shot or is willing to try and get lucky.

If I were one of the other 5, I'd have still kept playing for at least another half hour or so. If I were the fish, I'd have done exactly what he did and wouldn't be looking to play this same lineup again any time soon.

So where are all the wealthy fish going to play now? Why would they even consider playing high stakes any more with treatment like this???

Can't blame them at all.

The Commerce 200/400 instead of the 100/200 lol