That's because the problem isn't the equation you state above. To put this, as you did, in the form of math:

(Already poorly populated tables) / (Increasing numbers of tables those few players are sitting at) = (Even lower table population) = (Negative or stagnant site growth)

Your equation could be corrected as such:

(More player freedom) = (Stagnant or positive site growth) only under the condition that said freedom does not fragment the player population into undesirable levels.


Many have stated in this thread that the problem isn't the choice, it is the timing of the choice. People simply don't want to go to a site to have to hope there will even be a table of their favorite game going at that time. Many times I have had to play at one or even two levels away from my desired limit...and even then to find only one table often half-filled. That's just not worth the hassle when I can go to Stars and be playing a full table(s) of any limit I desire in mere seconds.

The only way you can claim Fred's decision is unwise is if it causes fewer player births (i.e. deposits) and/or more player deaths (i.e. withdrawals)

I'd like to point out that this entire line of reasoning would suggest that a brand new site should have one and only one table available on the day they open the doors because having two tables would "fracture" the population and lower the player birth rate (note that on day1 the player population is 0 and so the number of tables and games cannot alter the existing death rate of 0).

RIIT

Anyone who knows anything about running online games/mmogs/communities will tell you exactly that.

A multiplayer online-game will not have multiple parallel worlds to chose from when the initial expected sign-up is just a few thousand players. They will add new ones when the existing ones become crowded.

If you run an ailing game where there are not enough players per world to make playing fun you would not approach this problem by opening additional worlds.

A message board new to the market will not have dozens of finely grained sub-forums if they expect to start with only a few hundred members.

(In reality, an initial marketing effort is usually used to jump-start the whole thing so you can start with more worlds/forums/tables.)

So bots are allowed now?

This is mostly true. Is is also, pretty much, the point many of us have been making.

It seems there used to be always a couple games going of my preferred level. If I started a third, it would often be quickly filled, and then a fourth the same.

Recently there is often zero games going of my desired level, and sometimes also at either adjacent level. When I have attempted to start a table it only sometimes fills, and rarely completely. Attempts to start multiple tables have failed.

The number of players shown to be online consists of cash games, freerolls, play money and tournaments. Perhaps even "just logged in but not playing." I'm not sure how traffic overall has been lately, but I know my preferred cash game is down dramatically. The result: I don't even look for my game very often on WPEX anymore...I just go play elsewhere. I am not alone.

I agree with your comments in the context of MMOG's but adding a single (initially empty) table to an online poker room is not the same thing.

I don't buy the "fracture" argument because online GM's do not physically "force" players to sit at the new table (if this were the case then I'd agree with you). Players excersize personal freedom of choice in deciding whether or not to sit there in the first place.

Your entire argument suggests that the only way to build a successful poker room is with radically reduced player freedom(s). I cannot accept this idea.

Let me offer a scenario for a very small 1-2 table site.

Site A) the GM believes in forcing players into critical mass and so he opens only a single table of Type1.

Site B) the GM believes that player freedom will lead to critical mass naturally and so he opens two tables: Type1 and Type2.

Furthermore let us identify 4 types of players:

Type1 (will only play at type1)
Type2 (will only play at type2)
TypeY (will play type1 or type2)
TypeN (will not play type1 or type2)

Let us pretend the total population of available players, who are considering play at our scenario site, consists of 20 players (5 in each type).

Site A can attract 10 players: 5 Type1, 5 TypeY
Site B can attract 15 players: 5 Type1, 5 Type2, 5 TypeY

I agree that the Site A will have a higher player density per table (10 max) and that Site B will have a lower player density per table (7.5 max). However, Site B will have 33% more players and double the number of raked pots per hour.

The GM at Site B made the better decision and the only way you can argue otherwise is if you can show that at least 5 of the Type1 and TypeY players will leave the site because the player density moved from 10 to 7.5. I'll argue that these (max density only) players are not as valuable to the site seeing as they will be spending a good deal of their time on a waiting list because they refuse to sit at a table that isn't full.

For some reason, you seem to be fixated on player density per table and you consider non-full tables to be a site weakness.

RIIT

Right now there is 1 full 6-max NL10, 1 full 6-max NL25 table, all other NL tables are empty. In all cash games at all levels I counted 28 players. I admit this is not peak time, but guess where I found plenty of tables going for me to choose from? That's right....every single other site I play at. And that's where I'll be.

This comment has no relevance to the discussion about the wisdom of opening additional table types.

RIIT

This is the key.

Let's take a minute to recall the history of how we ended up up in the present sad state at WPEX.

When WPEX went rakefree, they implemented an innovative marketing campaign that was very successful. The site was swamped, overwhelmed by the traffic increase. A splashy CardPlayer article had the gamblers there like crazy.

The fatal flaw in their plan was that they were completely unprepared for a big traffic increase.

Let us count the serious flaws:

1. hand history email server completely unreliable with no good backup plan resulting in missing hand histories for hours at a time.

2. Software and server lag so bad that it was commonplace to be unable to act before being folded.

3. Disconnect protection that didn't work when the lag folded your cards for you, so you lost any share in the pot you had.

This followed by:

1. The blind bug that allowed CHEATERS to skip the blinds and still receive cards.

2. The no-HUD decision removes a lot of multi-tablers from the population.

2. The BOT scandal, in which close to half the remaining population, hanging on in the wake of the preceding fiascoes, were revealed to be bots and booted from the site.

Now the population has crashed, ever since the BOT expulsion, back to square one.

It's time for a new marketing campaign to re-jumpstart the site. I'll start a sub-thread in the monthly WPEX thread for discussion.

One of my pet peeves on the marketing front: The advertisement of WSEX instead of WPEX. It sounds like a porn site.

So basically the GM can take any decision what so ever with no effect at all on the player base as long as he doesn't physically force players to do certain things? You are reaching really far on this one RIIT.

All I'm saying is that the simple act of adding a few tables of a different type does NOT fracture the player population; some of you seem to be implying that players are like a gas and they will mindlessly fill all empty table space to some stable average density and this just isn't a true description of how players behave. If it were then, yes I would agree that Fred intentionally lowered the per table player density.

Which one of you, when arriving at a site, makes a table selection based on how your choice of seating will effect the overall variance in players per table for the site?

RIIT

Fred,

... any more updates?

RIIT

Fred, please respond as soon as possible.

The software is lag and slow badly after the new update, this will definitlly cost me and many others to stop play there until it's fix.

Hello,

Sorry. This should be fixed tomorrow, if not tonight. They seem to know what it is.

There are now breaks to VIP tourneys (and presumably all tourneys) I'm playing in the one right now - thank you fred, this allows those who drink a lot of water to have piss breaks

Any other changes, like to structure, etc. ?

And let me just reiterate the fact that VIP tourneys & their respective overlays are the best things ever

What is the requirement for entry into the VIP tourneys?

I've always thought of Ptracker and huds as crutches. I wish Pokerstars would do this so that I wouldn't have to worry about datamining.

LEARN TO PLAY WITHOUT THE TRAINING WHEELS
LEARN TO NOT USE PACIFIERS
LEARN TO LIVE WITHOUT MOM AND DAD
LEARN TO PLAY POKER WITHOUT POKERTRACKER AND HUDS

f'in pussies...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

BTW, PT & PAHUD != Datamining.

$75 rakeback in the previous week.

Fred,

I was hoping you'd post more stats on the HH and HH'less tables.

RIIT

BankItDrew,

What you want does not agree with the "natural" / "normal" internet environment. What you want is understandable within a live game but not online.

Get your mind right.

RIIT

just seeing this thread for the first time, and i might decide to try it out and see if the no HH tables are looser with more action, but i am wondering a little about deposit and withdraw options for US players other than checks.

the illest of bumps. gtpitch is mad jealous.

Depositing is easy.

Withdrawing is a "good luck bro" Waiting now since mid-October on payment since check was "lost" in mail according to WPEX.