I think this is an interesting point.

I perceive the time bank as a courtesy, and those who go into it hand after hand as just plain rude. They are playing a table or two too many, but the rest of you be damned, you're just going to have to wait for me until I'm ready to pay attention to that table. While it is true one can open up another table themselves, doing so is often suboptimal(and naturally exacerbates the slowness of the games) and for a fish, perhaps not tenable.

Of course it's hard to ascertain the effect on recreational players of slow action, but I highly doubt it's beneficial. It would be great if Stars could somehow find a way to penalize consistent abuse of the time bank. Play as many tables as you want, just do not be in the habit of abusing the time bank.

Fish cant spot the regulars. Less regulars will not cause more fish from join.

Changing the cap wont have ANY effect in the fish who only play one or two tables. It just means that people who cannot multitable well are going to stay behind.

Simple solution: the timebank is associated with your account instead of your table. For example, you have 10 seconds added to your total every hour to a max timebank of 200 seconds. This would actually provide significantly more time for critical decisions than is currently available while ensuring players are forced to act in a reasonable amount of time.

Fish can spot the nits who play on average 1 hand every two rotations. They frequently even comment about it. They don't like them. Get rid of the meganits and the fish have a more enjoyable time, which leads to them wanting to play more. When a fish gets taken out by a strong aggressive player it's often going to be a bit of back and fourth, and the final pot can even end up looking like the fish just got unlucky. It's a fun poker game. When the nit finally shows up with his overpair or set, it just makes the games seem dull and lifeless. Even though the strong player will end up with the fish's money much faster than the nit on average, the fish is going to have a much more enjoyable time losing to the strong player.

At first glance this seems like a fantastic idea.

I agree with this for the reasons I gave in the other thread.

Since the change was made last year the number of hands per hour on the full ring tables seems to have dropped considerably and overall there just seems to be a lot less fish on them.

A business model based around catering to the regulars at the expense of the fish is just very bad for the long term.

+1 agree

24-tablers absolutely kill the games. Its so annoying because they are at every ****ing table slowing the games down. As you said the hands per hour are noticeably down across the board from a couple of years ago. 12 tables should be the max.

Stars, stop being so greedy.

I'm sorry pokerboy, but this thread is complete fckn BS man. Your complaints are based around the fact that 24 tablers are killing the games and making them much tougher. The more people you have playing 20+ tables, the more games you have going period. In addition to this, if your only playing 5-6 tables, wouldn't that give you somewhat of an advantage over somemone playing 20-24? I would certainly hope so. I believe you started this thread because you are losing more than you'd like to and your tired of being owned on your 3-4tables by someone who has 20 other tables going. Deal with it man. This is poker, it's not basketball, **** it's not even golf. I think if you took some time and actually thought about it you'd realize that the more tables one can play, the more one can reduce his/her variance. The only people that really have a cash to petition agiasnt the 24 table cap should be the fish, who are going to lose regardless. But perhaps you are one of them.

-1 if you didn't get that already.

You're missing the whole point. We want it lower because they SLOW down the games which irritates the recreational players. Their skill level is no concern. In fact, they play at a lower skill level when they play more tables than they can handle.

I play 12/16 tables myself and when i'm winding down and only have one table left before I sit out, I just sit there in amazement at how slow the game is, and how long it takes to play one or two hands before my big blind until I can sit out. When you're playing so many tables you don't realize how slow the individual games are going.

-1 for the petition

+1 even though I never see them making this number smaller. The huge multitablers kill the games more than anything I can think of besides the gonvernment. Just look at some of the fishiest sites in the past and present. Pacific poker was a gold mine back in the day, but you could only play 1 table. Bodog was megafishy after the sites left the US market, and it was the only us site you could only 3 table.

EXACTLY.

This has much less to do with winning and losing as it has to do with over-extended multi-tablers reducing ALL of the games to a ridiculously slow pace.

I would be happy instead to have a DRASTICALLY reduced time bank or similar change...but seeing as Stars' model hasn't done **** for anyone but full-time regs forever I don't see this happening either.

Drop the slow tables and reduce the total to 16 imo. 12 would be even better...maybe 12 for 6 max and for 16 full ring all fast tables.

+1 pretty good solution.

not signed

** not signed **

The highly skilled regs would be forced to play fewer tables, thus making better decisions at the ones they do play, which would hurt the bottom line of fish and midlevel players alike who are sitting at those tables.

I'd rather play a marginally slower game than a marginally more difficult game.

Play more tables so you dont realize the lag?

-1

The thing about this is only effects certain limits because they are perfect for SNE chasing.

I wouldn't mind seeing a drop but definitly a hell no on any increase.


Currently no reactional players will come back to playing nl100 FR because it must be so painstakingly boring. Like a live game without the action lol.


People claim the tables aren't that much slower, but they are when you realise how many hands don't see a flop now because of how much tighter the tables are.

Not signed, but this:

is a great idea.

not a good ideea, 24 is fine.

+1 to reducing the tables.
never going to happen though

I think this is a bad place for that petition, because this place is filled with 24 table grinders. 24 is just too high and certainly pisses off recreational players, imo.

+1 from me, but It's not going to be implemented for two reasons

1. Why restrict only the cash game players?
2. 24 tabling grinders are good for PS bottom line.

Imo it should be a bit strange to cut down the tables in a moment when PS probably have gained market shares (record over 200K players) just because they attract so many people who's motivation is to try to grind out the supernova/supernova elite status.

As long as PS benefits from this development I think it would not happen.

Regarding the question if the games getting worse, the answer is probably yes which does not relates to how many tables you are allowed to play. Instead it is a natural development (You play more, you get better and so on). It is also a result of the fact that 3d part software's give a bigger edge to the PT/HUD (and similar tools) users over recreational players. That development should imo be stopped, for example: players should be forced to change screen names frequently, which somewhat would obstruct the software's players edge.

Sodom, is shortstackers like you that make the games worse, not the 24 tabling.
I hide from search and fish don't even know I'm on 24 tables.