Those of you saying "stars is awful"...

you are so naive...

its all of online poker for the past few years.

"All the smart players quit in 2008" -a quote from 2009

I'd love to see a 4-table cap, but it'll never happen because more tables = more rake. If Stars made playing there enjoyable for recs, rather than an ordeal, they'd probably make even more than they do now.

This is as far as i got and lmfao when i heard PKR, but it's true if you want to play family pots every 2nd hand. No actually, in all seriousness, at nl100 you'd get eaten alive pretty quick by the few vultures left there, but you would probably find the banter, bs and game somewhat entertaining at nl25.

Where the hell is Zoom anyway?

stars answer to rush (coming soon)

Try to only sit at fast tables. Most 24 tabling players only sit and standart ones, cause they cant handle fast with 24 tables open.

I personally play 20 tables atm including fast and its far away from playing robotic

Why not just make super fast timer tables with a small time bank, if that is the game that you want. But you cant fault anyone for using the time allotted. IMO

At a live casino people are never instant and hands take forever compared to online.
I actually like your idea though where there is a limit of 4 tables for certain special tables, but i think keeping the option open to 24 table is just as fair as you getting your way.

Plz let this happen

Cheers guys, these were some of the responses I was looking for.



I think these are great answers, and PKR does seem a bit ****, 8 game here we go!

delaying the inevitable for OP itt

+1, sounds great

I don't see how that would be bad

I wish sites had some sort of "time out counter"...like if you timed out twice on the same table, you were forced to play less tables.

(I'm a multitabling reg fwiw)

try heads up

I like reducing table limits for two reasons:
1) It speeds up the game for everyone keeping hands/table/hour as high as possible.
2) It improves the fish:reg ratio.

I dislike increasing table limits past where they are even for those that can keep up (and for the record would like to see them globally decreased, and I'm a mass table grinder myself) simply because it works against reason #2.

So if they can get a range of [keep up <---> 24 max] then great. If they lower it to a range of [keep up <---> 18] even better.