Quote:
Originally Posted by xalas
You used the word rig
how is it an advantage/disadvantage to you the player be it you're a small, mid, or big stack at the table if they balance the tables using such a method as far as the poker site is concern they make theirs from the tournament fee and have no motivation to rig a game against a particular player.
It's a disadvantage to the player because they thought they were playing in a tournament where seating is randomized on re-assignment, but it isn't. The site is taking away various outcomes of seating assignments. A big stack should sometimes play with all tiny stacks, sometimes clash with several other big stacks, sometimes have a good healthy mix of stacks at their table, and everything in between. If a skilled big stack *never* theoretically has an opportunity to play with a particular favorable stack set up (all smaller/all medium stacks or whatever) then he loses money compared to a random set up.
All outcomes should be able to happen eventually, in order to make it as impartial as possible. Instead of doing that, the site gives off the perception that they do that (by not really advertising otherwise), but really they do not do that. That's pretty silly! I'm not saying that the site is deliberately singling out players to scam them, but it is still not a great thing. However you wish to apply the term....
On looking more closely though, 5dimes adopts the whole "protect the ecosystem" approach and has the "open waters" and "shark tank" rooms. It was not specified in OP, and not clear on their site as to how the tournaments work. Perhaps this tournament was run as a "open water" tournament, hence the set up is different than in the other room? Is that even how they do it? I really have no idea so can't really say past what has been mentioned here and the brief glance showing no clear indication of this rule in their poker room info. Perhaps there is a more logical explanation than the customer service rep. gave the OP. As it lies, it looks crummy. Would certainly agree that the term "cheating" in the OP is misplaced, though.