I will start games against anyone (but I am somewhat unique sadly). Most of the community is shortsighted related to the necessity of short term -EV or EV neutral situations. At some point, however, the utility of starting games with good players diminishes or evaporates completely if there isnt a significant enough player pool to make the starting of games worth something. There has to be something to build towards.

Now, this is assuming that there are other options. But, if there are no other games to play and nothing to build towards, at the end of the day, we either have to play against other regs as a rule and adapt these short term -EV/neutral into long term +EV or quit and find something else to do.

Re: the second question.... I dont keep stats and never have, so I am the wrong guy to answer any questions re: to those issues.

As far as the third question is concerned, you guys view this stuff in a bit of a bubble, and its hurting you. You can not examine site liquidity in NV, the same way youd examine site liquidity in Iowa (as an example). If a guy in Des Moines has $1,000.00 on the site and is playing 2-4 NL every day, you can be reasonable sure he likely has $1,000.00 to spend on poker, wouldn't be playing bigger live (if it were even available), and you can and should dictate to him and his buddies what limits he should play in order to perpetuate play on your site and keep everyone in action. Unfortunately, that model won't work in NV because whatever metrics you use to determine site liquidity are incomplete and not available to you, especially at the higher limits. Hand holding won't work. Strict models won't work. You're doing yourself a dis-service. It was what formed the basis for your response the other day, and its flawed and broken. And it's not going to work in NJ either.

And yes, of course, it makes sense to play at a lower stakes range with more volume, if its profitable, but you're not dealing with a captive audience. Again, we have other options here in NV, and they'll have other options in NJ as well.

I, personally, am less flexible related to this issue than most, likely, for factors that I would prefer not to discuss publicly (and why i dont want to discuss actual stakes ranges), but it goes back to my previous point of having other options available. Ive had these conversations with Joe. You're not dealing with a local market, even though your demographic is geographically specific. When you're selling poker in NV, you're dealing with, and to, a global market. The issue of lack of liquidity is a horizontal one, not a vertical one..... and you guys did a good job of understanding that in the beginning (i.e. hiring Randy, being flexible to higher stakes action etc.) and then you reversed course. Your model is broken. There's liquidity in NV. The fall-off in volume over the last five weeks is not a coincidence. It was self-inflicted and avoidable. And now, predictably, the dominos are falling. And instead of recognizing these mistakes, you guys have entrenched (same issues re: 9-max/100bb, by the way).

WSOP.com has not been your biggest competitor/obstacle so far.

In my opinion, wsop isn't even a competitor at all. My thinking is that most cash game players would play at UP, and most tournament players would play at wsop (as donof said once, I don't see how any cash game player would prefer wsop to UP, as you spread enough limits for most to get what they want). wsop isn't trying to lure players from UP there, because they give no incentive to do so.

To The Numbers' questions, from my perspective, I've been a limit hold em player on the site since day one. I deposited $50, and if I lost it oh well. I used sound bankroll management skills to move up through each stake, and have been fully rolled up to 1/2 (I've since cashed that out because there is no chance of any of those games running, and if I game start I CONSTANTLY get hit and run, which makes me not want to game start). I'm still over rolled for .50/1, but am SERIOUSLY considering cashing out everything except maybe 50 or 60 bucks, due to not being able to get any .25/.50 games at all for almost two weeks. Hit and running was a massive problem at 1/2 and .50/1 limit in the past, but I always made sure I was nearly rolled for 1/2 before game starting at .50/1. When someone plays 10 hands with you, wins one moderate sized pot, you can imagine that it can take a toll on any bankroll.

There's a big difference between me and most players on the site, though. When I game start, I play in such a way that encourages players to sit down, while most of the people who play against me try to play like bulldozers. At the stakes that have any viability for limit hold em right now (.05/.10, .10/.20, and .25/.50), most of those players won't sit down and play with two maniacs, or hyper aggro players. I am definitely not a person who is trying to play heads up matches with people, so this is a real concern. In the past, a very successful game starting strategy (full ring) has always been to play relatively passively heads up, and then return to a normal strategy when players are added to the table. Also, rake at .25/.50 heads up is truly punitive when playing one of those hyper aggro players. I have played in sessions where after 50 hands or 100 hands, we are both down 5+ to the rake. So, going to a massively reduced rake for heads up play at limit hold em would probably also help.

Something interesting to note is that the vast majority of the micro stakes limit hold em players were 2/4, 3/6, or 4/8 players live. I used to hear nearly constant complaints that they wished 2/4 games would go, but they would never sit at them when they did. My guess is that their win rate (and loss rate for that matter) were so small that they figured it would be more fun to play 2/4 live than sit at .25/.50 being lucky to win 5 dollars in a session, or not lose 20. So, I think a lot of the attrition is due to people realizing they're playing something that is not much more than a time killer and slow burn. I try to use the stakes as time killers and fun profit centers, but most don't feel the same way about winning small amounts of money at a time, I'm sure.

In the games that are running these days, it's inevitable that a few huge donks like me and a few others will be playing 3 or 4 handed, and those games rarely will get full ring because they play much bigger than most players want to play.

It all comes back to incentives. If I'm going to have to start games as a heavy bag, it's hard to want to do that when people play you for 5 minutes and leave (regardless of whether I'm up and down). I wouldn't even game start on the site if I didn't feel I could at least break even in most of my heads up, and with hit and running being a nearly constant threat, lately, I can't typically break even. With the games at such a low volume lately, I can't even drag out of a down swing in any reasonable fashion.

The funny thing is that there has always been a pool of regulars that are willing to play all three stake levels I mentioned above, at the same time. The problem, as Catryan can probably attest to at his stakes is that they refuse to sit to start games heads up (people who know they can't beat you will not play with you, if they aren't sure a game will start quickly, and that hasn't happened for the last 5 weeks). Almost none of those regulars will sit down and start a game themselves, though they frequently check to see if there is any action. There are only a handful of people I won't give action to heads up, and it's almost always due to their personality or that they hit and run me at some point. When it comes to playing good players, I won't play certain people who I know will be a neutral experience, and who won't get people to sit down, but in most of those cases the person will sit with me and wait to get a game going. It just hasn't been happening much lately.

So, unless you're willing to give game starter bonuses, or start hiring prop players (getting the games to be a constant three handed is all you need to do to get games running in full ring), the site's probably going to fold up mostly except on weekends when any of the regulars are busy with their personal lives (like I have been lately). I'm not sure any of this answered any questions, but there's a lot of words for you to peruse to try to find something useful.

Definitely some good points here. Keep the responses coming.