nothing more annoying then waiting on a guy playing 12 to 16 tables to fold his 9-2 os.

how about having some tables restricted to those playing no more than 2 tablesw. maybe 4 max.

From what I hear, Bovada is a 4 max table site. (Although one can play as many MTTs as they want there).

I actually like this idea. Stops nits from grinding out 20 tabling 25nl to where they have to play 1/2+ to make real money so the food chain can progress upwards.

I love this idea but just one more thing. A player should have to change some setting or do something just to make the pool of non-4 max tables visible. This way it's more likely that all the 12 tabling super nits can sit together and the rec players can just play 4 max. Of course, getting rid of huds and tracking software would be good too, even get rid of the notes utility. Make it difficult to keep a read on one's opponent.

Why would a site want to decrease the amount of rake they get from mass multi-tablers?

because pokersites need rake to earn money. If all sites reduced to 2 table max, then regs will fire up 8 pokersites to get their 16 tables. Now one site only gets 1/8th of the rake not 100% like before and your timing issue hasnt been solved.

+

If you hate people taking ages, thats what zoom was made for

Mass tablers days are numbered so don't get frustrated OP.

Unibet/Party/888 are all introducing features that restrict the effectiveness of mass tabling and it can only be good for the game.

Just leave Stars. The only attraction of that site is the ability to mass table comfortably, so if you want to just 2 table, play somewhere that makes it a more enjoyable and profitable experience for you.

100% of the rake and 100% of the winning players profit ultimately comes from the same place, the losing player. Saying that a winning player "generates rake" gives a wrong impression as to what is really happening and makes winning players think they are helping the website. Many people here have this fundamental misunderstanding. The reality is that Amaya and winning players are in competition for the losing players money and Amaya doesn't like competition. Also, it's not like losing players play more hands because of the presence of winning regs.

The very best policy for the website is to ban winning regs from playing at or below their current limit. Force them to move up where they will either lose their money or win and be forced to move still higher(this will make players lose their money instead of just outright banning them and have them go elsewhere). In concert with this Amaya should make the rake at higher stakes closer, as a percentage of pot, to what it is at lower stakes.

Every withdrawal cuts into Amayas maximum profit.

I rarely play more than 4 tables. But there is nothing I like better than playing against opponents who are playing 20 tables. Players who play that many tables, by necessity, have to play a very predictable game. Under what other circumstance would I ever be able to consistently beat players who are actually better players than myself? I'm fine waiting for them to fold their 92o.

if games became unbeatable they would dry up. I am in profit but I have tried some areas where I have had my ass handed to me.

I was the fish in those games and I would never have come if i knew it was not beatable.

sites should want winning players because for every winning player that exists there are numerous wannabees motivated by that who are trying to mimick it,

If I suddenly say I am making $200 an hour from game X and post results to prove it here how many people will now try to play game X study it and try beat it and how many of them will fail and generate rake?

this idea that winning players hurt the game is so short sighted and simplistic way of seeing things. I can assure you if Amaya were silly enough to get rid of winning players pokerstars would dry up pretty damm fast.

poker sites don't want to get rid of winning players, they are taking measures for the long term viability of online poker, it's simple as that.

Grinders and winners do have their place in a poker ecosystem, they churn most of the money back and fourth after the fish has inevitably dumped and left meaning more of the money is turned into rake. They also ensure plenty of games are always running day and night.

Winners are the by-product and proof of the main attraction of the game 'it's a beatable game of skill!'

I have mentioned this in another thread. Yes it is significant, those who are motivated to become a long term profitable player and fail, and the rake that that amounts to, and how many fewer would do so if one couldn't succeed due to rake. However much money this is has to be quantified and weighed against how much money is going to withdrawals from long term winners, so there is a cost and a benefit. It is only conjecture to claim that one or the other amounts to more money.

I have looked at this as there being 3 groups, those who deposit, those who withdraw and Amaya. Perhaps those who deposit should be put in 2 different groups, 1 that will deposit regardless of long term result and another that will only deposit if they can be long term winners. If a person deposits only so he can be a long term winning there is a limited amount of money he will deposit and, I suspect it is very little relative to the other group. If he is such that he will continue to make deposits then really he should be moved into the group who will just keep depositing regardless.

I think "wannabees" are more likely to see poker on TV or Youtube or hear about from friends rather than do research into the possible winrates of online players. I think if a wannabee is that serious he will either deposit and soon start winning or quit.

Consider the likelihood of a losing player running hot and winning a lot of money and having an exciting time moving up limits before he loses it back. He will have a story for the water cooler on Monday. He may not even lose it back that weekend or may "forget" he lost it all back and more. But how likely is this to happen at a table with a bunch of grinding regs vs a bunch of loose bad long term losers?

I think a losing player is most likely attracted to the game because it's "cool, like on TV", "I can be like Phil Ivey", "I could get rich", "my idiot friend said he made money last weekend so I can too".

Of course these things require it to be beatable but, IMO, they don't think like that and they don't think in terms of "proof", you do, probably because you are a good serious player who withdraws.

whatabout learning to multitable, nothing more annyoing then a fish 1 tabling.

no they won't. playing 16 tables on 1 site is completely different than 16 across 8.

Heavy multitabling players, if they dont contribute enough for the profits of the site, it is better to limit the table max. That makes the games better, though some prefer to play vs. those bots. Some tables are not profitable to more or less of them, meaning they produce rake for the site. Cant see stars is going to drop the amount of action, but it has been done at many other sites, just that they are not the number one reg places. Protecting the fish might just slow down their lose rate, but having games they dont like gets rid of them fast, or they play lower, and less often.

They are not making any money out of selective players but those winners will beat money out of some other regs, that will produce rake.

Must move up is a good idea, but the site likely will lose most of their action till they feel ready to move up.

I always wondered that when Bodog turned usa facing players to Bovada. Why would you not want people to play more than 4 tables?

only thing that makes sense is they made it annonymous to stop grinders from using HUD's and with that, those grinders would be the only ones multi tabling?

when Bovada rolled out years ago, they didnt even hide the fact that they only care for recreational players and could care less about the pro everyday grinder.

only a certain amount of money can be made per hour per table. relative to stake level of course. its true if the standard got worse a higher rate would be achievable however not one that would ever compensate for the table reduction. the fact is if you restricted people to 2 tables then people playing any game other then heads up hypers would not make minimum wage for any games less then $100 buyin and even then they would just be scraping the barrel. variance is large to.

Even with hypers the max games per day with this model would struggle to exceed 100 games. with the low margins the variance would make it possible to go quarter of a year losing despite been a winning player. it would literally take years of grinding to get to the stage where you can make min wage and even then it would be very high variance.

perhaps a few years more one could make the same wage that the average middle management can make. effectively this would make the game near impossible to ever realistically make an income from.

the only game worthwhile playing would be heads up hypers and since every single reg would head there from every game variant the standard would be way way way higher then it is now. $10 games would probably be the same standard level that the $100 games are currently. what you are proposing would it make it completely unattainable to ever make a living from online poker.

Im glad I am not the only one thinking that online poker has become a disaster. its like trying to beat my family at monopoly...I end up throwing the board on the floor and quitting lol. To me it seems like 25 and 50NL online is alot harder to beat consistently than 200NL at the horseshoe near Chicago.

there is still people that can make 6 figures easily each year at the moment which is still worth fighting for. nothing in life worth having comes easy if you want to make a living from poker its a full time job of effort not an easy button clicking when your bored.

right now its still achievable with the changes been suggested in this thread it would not be.

the real thing that made poker so much harder was the richest country in the world with the largest population of individuals having enough disposable income to be able to afford to lose been banned.

if american poker players were allowed back into the international pools tomorrow then over night the games would get much softer they would never be as soft as they once were but they would be much softer now.

we dont want the sites to make it harder on the top regs because we all want to become the top regs many may fail to get there but I for one would rather have that opportunity.

I have played on sites that already follow anti reg principles and they are great for grinding a poker roll together as they are laughably easy, however your never going to make a decent wage there ever.

I agree with everything you say here. But why is Bovada so hard to beat these days. It just seems improbable to find any novice players that dont get rewarded on you. I know this may seem like complaining about poker but I just cant quite wrap my finger around that. either way, great response and thanks for the answers. Happy New Year man