This isn't true. The high-stakes expert analysis (skates looked into it afaik) deemed that the games were not beatable long-term at the current rake schedule (2.5% at high stakes), and not even close at lower stakes/higher rake.

Spamzor is good but it's unlikely (and possibly provable) that he can come up with a long-term +EV strat for 10bb poker with such a high rake against an average opponent. Obviously we could think up exceptions, like someone who folds 80%.

Oh, wow. I did not know spamz had played so few games. I just see people saying he's up on them occasionally.

Yeah, in that case, it's fair to say they're unbeatable.

+1 for eliminating super turbos all together.

every game you offer should be beatable other wise you become a casino instead of a poker room and we are trying to show law makers there is a difference because poker is a skill game so lets keep it that way.

This needs to be explained in detail, not just asserted, if there's to be any chance of getting rid of superturbos. Honestly, though, it's probably just not true.

Firstly, spreading games that recreational players like is the way to keep the recreational players around, and secondly, spreading games with lower edges is the way to keep money from being taken off the site.

The fact that they aren't beatable doesn't matter since the people playing them wouldn't beat other games either. In fact, their expectation may very well be higher in superturbos than in games with more skill.

But more fundamentally, FTP is providing a service that is very popular with many of its customers. As is always the case under a free enterprise system, FTP only succeeds as a business insofar as they give the customer what he wants. This leads to a win-win for both parties involved.

Certainly, superturbos are probably bad for us for the reasons that have been mentioned, but that doesn't make it ok for us to try to force superturbo players to play formats they'd rather not play or for us to try to force FTP not to spread games they'd rather spread.

This is something I think we're all in agreement with.

i consider their interest when giving feedback because i choose so.
you don't tell me how to give feedback, ok?

let's keep this clean

1) We pay the highest rake of any game. It is seriously insulting for the players to be excluded from every promotion when we are already taking the most damage from the rake. Between this, rake races being delayed, the affiliate cuts being dropped, and the horrible support it really clear that Full Tilt's stance is "**** the players, they can't live without us." It makes supernova elite very tempting.

2) I think that a combination of lower rake and deeper starting stacks is really the only way to go. The rake right now is a complete joke and the fact that red pros are unexploitable in this is just ridiculous. At least with deeper stacks we can pretend that they aren't just grinding out free money at our expense.

3) The "add a table" option is very practical. Anything that makes it easier to get another table up will encourage the use of it. It will also prevent angle shots where people agree to new tables then don't join and hope you get stuck distracted playing against someone else. Beyond this, anything that encourages MULTITABLING is obviously going to generate more rake.

This. PokerStars punishes people for abusing this in their no blind increase games - I don't see why Full Tilt is incapable of doing the same.

By "lower edges" keeping the fish around people typically mean that the fish has an edge closer to neutral EV. As a result, the variance is higher and they can have bigger winstreaks which make it harder to see if they are winning or losing money. If there was just high variance in this game then it would be true. However, the reason the edge in this game is so complained about is because of the rake. This does NOT help the fish and is not in any way good for keeping them around. It is just a high variance game (good for keeping fish) in which they will lose their money FAST (>>>TERRIBLE<<< for keeping fish).

this is so obvious it's not likely to come up, anyway...

RAKE CAP for heads up sit and go!
it is absurd to have rake cap for heads-up cash, and not for heads-up sng.

the edge of a reg player playing another reg at 200-300$+ is a lot smaller than at lower stakes. i assume everybody agrees with it.

wich means you have to put a rake cap to increase the number of regs willing to be playing each other and generate rake at high stakes...

So let them spread games they want to spread at a reasonable rake? Or just tell them what you want, like they're asking you to do? Do you want to play these super turbos or would you prefer them to be changed/removed?

Is there a need to play devil's advocate when the outcome of doing so can only be worse results for you and your peers?

I'm not sure I agree with the second part of that. From full tilt's point of view, I'm not sure they really care about how long it takes for the fish to lose their money, and in fact, losing it faster very well might increase the deposit frequency and increase full tilt's profit levels overall, and would be the entire reason they're adding things like superturbos and rush poker.

So unfortunately, they really just might not give a **** that superturbos are bad for *us*.

Obviously the entire poker economy is fueled by people who lose their money. But lets be honest. Does full tilt really care if the fish lose their money to good players, or they lose it to other fish and the rake? More importantly, *should* they care? I'm not so sure they should, and would be very interested in hearing solid arguments to the contrary.

ban

I was replying to the dude that was saying that it was going to help keep the fish. There is absolutely no way that fish are going to be like "HIGH RAKE! **** YEAH!" If they want to keep the rake high in super turbos I really couldn't care less because I'm not stupid enough to play them. However, I do care that Full Tilt has complete disregard for maintaining the happiness of their players because it just means that things are going to get progressively worse for us until we jump ship.

Dude, if fish didn't want to play these games, none of thiss would be an issue. However, looking in the lobby should be enough to prove that fish do like the games enough to pay the current rake.

Then what is the point of FTPDoug asking us what we want? So he can just say "hurr, just kidding, don't give a **** about what you want"?

FTP: "Hey, what do you want?"
Player A: "I would prefer it if-"
Player B: "HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THAT THEY MIGHT NOT WANT WHAT YOU WANT"

Not singling you out, TNixon. But it just makes no sense for anyone to be trying to say anything that could be interpreted to be in favor of these little rake-sucking-machines. Yes, we understand that they may not be interested in giving us what we want. No, that should no stop us from telling them what we want when they ask us what we want.

Nor does it mean we should try to come up with some sort of compromise: "honestly it would be okay if you just used slightly more lube." - Screw that. I want them to stop bending over HUSNG players. If telling them that results in them using a little more lube, then fine, but that is not the result I'm looking for.

Yaqh, if they wanted to know what the fish wanted, they wouldn't have come to ask us what we wanted.

Smart people hate it because the rake is high. Fish like it because it has high variance and is brainless play. I'm not saying fish don't like the games. I'm trying to explain to you why the games having a low edge caused by an unbeatable rake is NOT what is keeping the fish. It shouldn't be that difficult to comprehend.

The point is that you can create a middle ground that still entertains fish without destroying the games for the winning regulars.

add 10x games. That means when you register, you have to play ten games in a row with the same opponent. 3x or 5x is ok too. I need you to help me with my low volume. Usually I quit after few wins or losses and dont generate rake anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

this a cool idea. especially 3x and 5x

registering for a multiple games challenge vs the same opponent

i guess payout may also be redefined in this case

these ideas are really gimmicky and really come across as "give me a bigger edge vs these donkeys." if people want to play 3 or 5 or 10 games in a row, they can use the already-existing rematch button.

i don't think that's what this thread should be about, I'd like to focus on solid, normal ideas/issues that should be changed. the things i outlined in the OP are issues that are unfair to husng players (exclusion from promotions) or players in general (a rake rate that makes the game unbeatable) that should be remedied.

i assume ftpdoug can filter through the stupidity to find the real issues that impact the games, but i still don't think making a mockery of the thread is a good idea.

My concerns:

1. The "add another table" checkbox would be FANTASTIC. There's really no downside other than the development time: It increases rake for you and makes it easier for people who want to play more to play more. It might marginally increase chat harassment is the only thing I can think of but that's easy enough to deal with. It's also in-line with what seems to me to be FTP's new calling card (see rush poker, etc): Innovative to give users what they want. It's just another thing for people to point to in the Stars vs. FTP debate.
2. Timing all the way down on every decision IS unsportsmanlike conduct. Stars is already dealing with this, you should too.
3. Superturbos are indeed shortsighted as a business model. I know there are probably people at work that would scream if you did something about them "profits are up x%!", but they do make recreational players lose their money quickly and make them less likely to return. They also make your regulars unhappy, because as mentioned, it's a game that you don't have an advantage in even if you're playing against a somewhat bad player, and the games become more difficult in those that are easier to beat. Thus, your regulars that play massive volume leave the site. I would strongly recommend lower rake, a slightly less severe structure, as I doubt you'll eliminate the concept.
4. Everything that has been said about not getting included in promotions.
5. I wouldn't do anything like "Best of 3/5" or something like that. At some point, the lobby is getting to get pretty cluttered, and even if we're pros at using filters etc, some fish aren't. There are already a lot of games at a given limit: superturbo, turbo, normal speed, deepstack, shootout...if you're playing someone who wants to rematch, you'll get your rematch, if you're not, it's not someone who probably would have sat in "best of" tables anyway.

So do you presume to know where that maximal point is better than the people making the decisions over there at full tilt? Or do you just believe that they implemented things like superturbos and rush poker willy-nilly without any thought towards how they might affect the long-term poker economy?