No, they don't.

?

I'd assume e.g. midstakes SnG to be filled with 2/3 regs that play >10 tables each (numbers estimated based on own data, talking to a lot of other players and stuff like table ninja data). Dunno, I call this multitabling a lot. Are we talking about the same platform?

even complete recs who hop on once a week usually play multiple tables at a time, what kind of denial is this? lol

I would say the average -winning reg- plays 4-5+ tables , probably at least 50% of recs at least two table (nature of the game, it's more fun to be making decisions more often than to sit around doing nothing 45 seconds at a time)

Yeah, that's one of the features that make online poker a thing for so long. If I played poker in my freetime, I'd also not want to sit around for ages waiting for others to make decisions, that's simply boring if u don't really enjoy watching others and think about their ranges and motives (and I'd guess that's a small minority who does it).

What do you think is the average number of tables played by online poker players in 2017 simultaneously?

What do you think is the median number of tables played by online poker players in 2017 simultaneously?

Sorry, I lack valid data for that. If a random guess helps, I'd say median is 2 or 3, average is 5-6. It's also a bit too general of a question since game types differ a lot in speed. Values will be a lot higher for 9m turbo sng than for spins or hu cash.

I think that your answer shows that you and I have radically different beliefs about the composition of the online poker playing world.

I don't know of any publicly available data on multi-tabling to hand (perhaps someone can find any? I couldn't).

The closest I can find is that as far back as November 2014, PokerStars/Amaya said that most new poker accounts are joining on mobile, so the idea that the median is more than 1, and the average is above 2, seems "far-fetched" to me.

Well it's based on my experience over 100k midstakes SnG, talking to dozens of players about what and how (many tables) they play. I probably have nearly all current and a lot of former regs marked so my judgment of the current reg/rec ratio (it's roughly 2:1, varying by exact stakes and gametypes) should also be relatively solid. I also check most ppls "Registered in Tournament" tab, so I have seen quite a lot of recreational players choices of games. There are some common mixes like combining spins & ko sng/tourney, supposedly b/c these are on major tabs in the software.

For all other game types, I lack sufficient data. It's SnG players tho, that are likely harmed most by the upcoming changes.

Sounds like you guys are talking about different things.

Over the course of 2017 of course the data will be skewed towards 1 if every account counts equally, tons of 1-tabling fish will play one or two short sessions and skew the data (there's also the gimmick games like Spins/BTC that are more likely to be 1-tabled). If you go by players logged in at any one time (a snapshot of the current state of the games) the average number of tables being played will be much higher.

It probably varies quite a lot according to format and buy-in level. At this very moment (6.37pm UK), around 60% of the 2NL zoom full ring pool (555 entries total) are only playing 1 table of that particular game. For FR 25z (124), it's closer to 75% (which is higher than I expected). 6-max zoom 50NL (290 total) looks to be about 60% one-tablers too.
Whether the 1-tabling zoomers are also playing regular tables and/or tourneys at the same time is something that Stars people could look at, because I certainly can't be bothered to look up everyone. I think it goes without saying that regular cashgame tables tend to have more of the mass-tabling nitregs, because those games are so slooowwwwww.

Oh, I just remembered I still have Tablescan Turbo installed. A quick check of the regular 6max 2NL tables (337 filled tables, 2022 seats in use) shows that about 25% of seats are taken by one-tablers. Well over half the seats are taken by people with 4 or more games on the go. 20% of the seats are being used by people with more than 10 tables up. 3 people have 20+.

EDIT: Grogler looks like a "fun" table.

Card match promo probably skewing figures at moment.

Good thing Amaya has cut costs with liv3streaming these 100kEUR Highrollers. Line-ups don't seem that interesting anyway and I doubt any recreational player would want to watch nosebleed cards up coverages.

(E: Apparently liv3streaming is a censored word wtf?)
(E2: Also apparently I've posted the same rant on 100k Hart topic earlier this year. Alzheimer incoming?)

Please could you quantify the play money ecosystem in a little more detail? Eg is it static with most people just remaining there and never progressing to real money, is it not the case that people also buy 'play' chips and so theres some economic element to it, or is there no trading or selling on of play chips and no subeconomy at all? Playing gamified poker with no financial interest would seem to be quite a bit different from being a gambling addict or an aspiring winner or even just a casual losing player, and play money poker is still quite a bit different from all the other games you mention because they obviously offer zero or near-zero prospects for winning long term from the outset.

Thanks! Is it possible to grab the same data for SnG or other gametypes? It fits my judgment of the situation quite well but i hate to throw in guesses w/o being able to back the up with sth else than "believe me, i play these things a lot".

If possible and u don't mind, please try the following formats:

6m hyper
6m hyper ko
6m turbo
9m hyper
9m turbo
9m turbo ko

tia!

edit: the 9m probably don't run enough at 7$+ offpeak to get insights, my guess is that peak is between 21:00 and 23:00 CET.

I don't know why this question is addressed at me - I don't have any access to any non-public information on PokerStars' play money ecosystem, as I ceased any employee/employer relationship with them some time ago.

These days, I'm just a customer of theirs and just some random guy on the internet.
I've seen various people say publicly that something in the order of 1% - 5% of people might convert from play money to real money after the first few weeks/months. That is, some people might play with play chips in their first few hours to check out the software, but almost no one converts to real money in the longer term.

Yes, you can buy play chips from various online poker sites like Zynga and PokerStars and (I assume) others.

This explanation from PokerStars explains why there is supposed to be no trading or selling of play chips, and why there should therefore be no subeconomy:
Sure. But is it all that different from the motiviations for new real money poker players? Amaya says that in the 4th Quarter of 2016, there were "approximately 2.5 million" Quarterly Real-Money Active Unique poker players. How many "long-term" winners do you think are amongst those 2.5m players? I don't know, but I'll take unders on 100k "long-term winners" in the world. That's ~4%, which seems somewhat awfully small to be a worthwhile motivator.

Ppl don't start grinding b/c 4% or 7% or 13% of the overall pool is winning. They start because they think THEY can win at these (e.g. after watching twitch or youtube vids from someone who can I suppose. Or hearing from a friend etc.) Running hot at the start might be a major factor as well I guess.

--

A question that always came to my mind: Why do people buy play money chips when they could just sit a table with the exact same amount of real money they'd spend on play chips? I don't see any rational reasons for not taking the chance to win for free.
If it is just for the joy of playing: They could have the same joy at the lowest stake at whatever prefered gametype.

Arty's figures confirmed that the median is probably 1 table; they did not fit your judgement.

Ok it's probably 1 or 2 tables for a certain gametype, that doesn't actually contradict the main point, does it?
My numbers were based on a different gametype as well, see above posts.

Your earlier arguments assume perfect table selection ability, or perfect skill self-assessment, whichever you prefer. This is because you assume that "no deposits = no rake", in other words, no players with current balances would play absent newly depositing players.

But here you go out of your way to fatally undermine your own argument.

You can reply that eventually the current player balances would be depleted. This is true, but they equal more than half a year's revenues, last I checked.

The bottom line is that the idea that the poker economy is based around net depositors is right. But simplistic versions of it don't aid clear thought. Regs provide perhaps the greatest service of all, they generate revenues. If you don't believe this, why do you honestly think they haven't taken hard measures, like banning all software or capping tables, to get rid of multi tablers?

wrong. if it wasn't for the fish regs wouldn't be using those scripts and playing all of those tables.they'd find something better to do with their time.

What makes you think that causing people to "start grinding" is a good thing?

I don't think that's a good objective for a poker site overall, let alone a "VIP program".

Because they enjoy it.

Again, I think that you and I just have a radically different view of who actually plays poker online. Most poker players aren't like you. Most poker players could not have less interest in beginning to "start grinding", and, indeed, for many players, the idea of poker being a "grind" would cause them to leave the game, not attract them to it.

That's not always true.

Here's another way of looking at it:

A hypothetical player has $10 to spend on poker, and in return he wants to obtain entertainment. He can spend that on X,000 play chips, and lose them over 50 hours. Or, he can spend that on $10 of real money chips, and lose them over 5 hours. In that hypothetical scenario, he is entertained for ten times longer by buying play chips.


From what I understand, you are motivated to play poker by the thought of winning money. Other people are motivated to play poker because they want entertainment, and they have a choice between real money poker, play money poker, roulette, Candy Crush, Netflix, Golf, and so on.

If you look at those players as humans who are seeking entertainment, rather than poker players who are wanting to "start grinding" then you'll have a radically different view on what benefits them and what is good for them.

It's free speech at it's lowest when someone with misplaced loyalty to a corporation that's not treating their customers well, is willing to pervert common sense for them. What makes it so toxic is that the misrepresentations can't be refuted. So the distortions just keep going on and on, with an almost roidal overconfidence and aggression.

It's like someone trying to argue that the sky is green, and then standing there and goading people on to talk him down. The arguments will never end, but really what's the point when he's not persuading anybody that he's right.

Well it depends what stakes he plays. The 360 man $0.10 turbo SNG takes an average of hour to play (obviously longer if you get to HU) - so he can get a hundred table-hours of real money poker for his $10 even if he bricks every tournament - and it's a game where the other players are actually trying even though they are not brilliant.

I also don't see how play-money poker can compete with that.

In cash games what do you guys think the ratio of recs vs regs are player pool wise? & if all regs were too leave wouldn't that make the company lose $? i think there is a tipping point where regs will stop playing on their site & they will lose $ and their teetering at that point with these potential changes.