Quote:
Originally Posted by BGnight
Such stupid logic. First, the site makes money off rakeback so they want people playing more tables.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BGnight
NO
There should not be a max limit. Average Joes play on one table. They don't care if you're on 20. And you're an idiot if you think the poker site is going to throw all that potential rake a 10+ tabler brings in via himself and all the tables he starts. You're literally suggesting they do away with what makes the site the most money LMAO.
The site makes money from rake and it's the recreational players that fuel the games in the first place, not regs. If you were to get rid of all of the recreational players then there would simply be no games running long term. While table starters do offer some benefit to the poker site in the short term in that it enables a recreational player to find a game, the caveat is that the reg who starts tables expects to win at each table in which he plays (to a lesser, although still positive, expectation as his table count increases).
A great way to look at this is to imagine everybody at a table as a +(if they're a winner who cashes out) or a -(if they're a losing player who doesn't cash out). So at a 6 handed game we have:
1. - 2. - 3. - 4. - 5. + 6. +
The site is generating rake from this table only so long as seats 1-4 continue to play. As soon as players 5 and 6 win all of the money the games stops and no more rake is generated. Since most recreational players don't multitable, the ability to play more than 'x' amount of tables only benefits regs (individually) and will increase the + to - player ratio at every table.
So instead of the first scenario, before long you'll see:
1. - 2. + 3. + 4. + 5. + 6. +
The first scenario is a better playing experience for everybody. The game quality is much better for regs, but what's way more important is that it's a better playing experience for the recreational players. When recreational players get they opportunity to play against other recreational players they actually get to experience winning. In the 2nd scenario there's almost no chance that the recreational player can win and makes him that much less likely to redeposit. The only person hurt by the 1st scenario is the reg who not longer has the ability to mass multitable and because now he can't multiply his potential to beat recreational players out of their money across extra tables. The only benefit the mass multitabler offers to a poker site is his willingness to start tables. But a global wait list accomplishes WAY better in that it allows recreational players to find a game whenever they want, and find a game in an environment this isn't completely overrun with multi tabling regs.
Quote:
Second, there's no ability to use a HUD so why punish someone who wants to play more tables?? (oh, that's right. because you suck at multitabling and are jealous of people who make more money than you) With that logic all hands should be all in preflop coin flips because any type of poker playing "rewards regs".
The ability to use a hud and play multiple tables isn't mutually exclusive. While having a hud helps the multitabler, it's irrelevant to the point. I play 6 tables so this would hurt me in the short term, but it would be better for the long term health of the site.
Quote:
And the more tables a person plays the more their game suffers so it actually rewards the single table recreational player.
3. It "rewards" the single table recreational player in that he loses less to the reg; it doesn't make him a winner in the game.