That's the official response from PokerStars

Join up and have some poker fun at our tables today*

*doesn't include games where you'll be watching multiple 20 second countdowns from 25 tablers every deal.

I see CitizenPWR is back on Ipoker pissing off the fish. He's sitting out more than he's playing.

This.

Auto time bank programmes should be on poker sites banned software list.

I'm going to sound like an old man here...

You should feel lucky. When I started, the cap was 3 tables.

As people have said, I think it's just harder to program a table cap for tournaments because it depends on how quickly you bust out, whether you win satellite seats, when the tournies you've registered for start in the future, etc etc. With cash it's easier to keep track.

Oh and I agree with Alobar

Speaking the truth is not an insult, or it shouldn't be at least. I find your posts consistently disingenuous and often full of flat out lies for no apparent reason. I don't think you even do it consciously since it's such an incredibly common characteristic of your posts.

Here for instance, needbeer is up 160k in cash games this year? Interesting PTR has him up a TOTAL of 169k over just under two years and with more than 4million hands put in. And for his results this year he's been mostly just treading ratholer water as he seems to be just about where he was at the beginning of Feburary profit wise.

As for his amazing tournament results, well he blocked his shark scope. Fortunately we have Official Poker Rankings which has him with an impressive -38% ROI and unsurprisingly a profit < $0. See, saying things like somebody is a big winner at donkaments does matter when the truth is they're a lifetime loser with a very negative ROI.

And then we get to the 'vip benefits' aka rakeback + donkament entries. This one I cannot substantially pick apart given that PTR does a terrible job of rake approximation to say nothing of the fact that ratholers pay less rake than average players resulting in a greater true effective rakeback %, etc. Regardless I'm sure it's nowhere even remotely close to your 'approximations'.

Saying he's up anywhere even remotely close to 400k in the past 8 months is just ridiculous and a flat out lie. You do this over and over again Bob and I don't really understand why. Maybe disingenuous is not the proper term since I think you actually believe your own 'creations'. But don't expect me not to call you out on them. Maybe we can be friends. I can help slowly ease you out of Bob World and back into reality!

do it right - Your tone is awful. Whether you want to claim that you aren't insulting me doesn't make it so. You are going out of your way to babble about whatever personal issue you have with me and it's annoying and unnecessary.

His rakeback amount is based on the number of VPP's he has earned according to Stars. He has 2.1M VPP's this year or something. The value of each VPP is approximately $0.11 to $0.12 or so. That's about $110k to $120k for every 1M VPP's earned. So my rakeback approximation for him is likely quite correct.

Interesting about his OPR thing. Not sure if that looks at SNG's or just MTT's though. Not really a big deal to me as I really don't care. You really seem to be taking this issue of needbeer to heart. I was just pointing to him as an example of a 30-tabling guy who makes a nice amount of money at it. You seem to have some sort of problem with that which seems strange.

I did indeed misread his ptr and was looking at it from the beginning of 2009 and not the beginning of 2010. That's not being intentionally deceitful though. It's called "making a mistake." Thanks for the correction.

Anyway, stop behaving so badly on the forums just because you disagree with something I said or would like to provide a correction to something you think I got incorrect.

Thats pure gold IMO. You have to earn your platinum or whatever then why not put the same principle into how much tables one can play- exactly the same amount one can handle and not one table more.
Anyone with a drivers licence can drive a car but not everybody can drive a F1. So why give this powerful 24-tabling weapon into the hands of unscillful tards who maybe shouldn't even be multitabling at first place?

Bob, I don't take anything personally unlike some. I simply have a preference for the truth or 'accuracy' if you prefer. Of course that can be a problem when trying to defend certain issues.

I mean in this thread you were asked and I quote: "FPP's aside, are these players able to make a profit through play or are they mostly break-even?" And instead of simply manning up, you decide to try to deflect the question and start talking about everything other than the one simple question you were asked. FPP's aside, wizardofahhs is at best barely better than breakeven and it's entirely possible he's no longer even breakeven - it looks like he's down money over a little more than 1.1million hands. See the profit vs hands played graph for this information.

Beating around the bush is one thing but then you further exasperated the situation by providing inaccurate information and information based on nothing more than a random uneducated guess in the case of his donkament results. I believe you when you say it was unintentional but this is also a trend in a number of your posts. I'll keep my tone more upbeat since I agree my post did come off a crankier than usual, but come on man - don't post about things you don't know, and look at the graph twice. It takes all of 1 second!

doit - I really don't care about him anyway. I'm not a fanboi of his in the least. It was just an example of a guy who plays 30+ tables successfully. I was incorrect regarding his apparent profits before rakeback. You were incorrect about how much rakeback he makes. And I don't care at all that you didn't understand that. It's pretty common and I hope you learned something.

You are continuing to bring up the issue about how frequently you think I'm wrong. It's stupid. It's also not the end of the world to misread a graph. Just like it isn't the end of the world if you don't understand Stars rakeback and I have to explain it to you. This thread isn't about me and isn't an invitation to post your thoughts about me. So stop posting your thoughts about me. Nobody is interested and they aren't welcome.

The thread is about 24-tabling on Stars....not whether you think I'm disingenuous or not.

Bob, I wasn't incorrect about how much he makes via rakeback. See unlike you I ensure I know I am correct before speaking. I stated as much and offered no figure, though I did take a swipe at you in doing so. Congrats on being right on that one. 1/4 ain't too bad! Hopefully you learned something from the other 3/4 points you were wrong on.

You continuing to invent 'facts' is obviously not the end of the world. But it is certainly stupid so don't cry when you get called out on it. And please drop the ostentatiousness. I have little personal opinion about you one way or the other, just your posts.

More precisely, he is not winning in SnGs or Mtts.
Got him topsharked: In around 7500 SnGs -28k or so; in around 1200 Mtts -20k or so.
Definitely not that impressive. Besides the volume he plays maybe.

Really don't get all the hate towards break-even players who "live" off rakeback. In the end, 1) it's all about your $/hour and 2) it all spends the same. Some players are world class talents at poker, great for them. Some other players are only "ok" but can play at great speed & have the solid discipline needed to play a ton of hands. I don't see a problem with both camps being rewarded.

its a combination of jealousy and greed. They clog up the tables and are basically dead space that sucks money out of the fish and dump it all back to the site in rake, so it means a good player makes less money. Tho its funny because it would be much worse if they were actually good at poker, so really everyone should just be thankful they are content being breakeven instead of actually working to get good. And then its jealousy because someone with less talent than you is making just as much money. Its like if your secretary at work was making as much as you.

If you slow down cash games by playing too many tables, Pokerstars loses rake.

If you slow down SNG's by playing too many tables, Pokerstars loses nothing, as they've already collected their entry fee up front.

IMO

opr is just 45+ players

plenty of big sng winners have losses on opr

Even if you play terribly, 4million hands a year is a lot of hard work and so the good players should be grateful they have a lighter workload for the same $$.

That's what I thought. Seemed strange that people were referncing his Opr stats for his sng ability and I thought I must be wrong about that.

I've seen his name near the top of the sng leaderboard so thought it was weird his numbers were supposedly so bad. But with his volume I so think its possible a breakeven player or worse can find their way up there since its all about one hot stretch each week.

That's what I thought. Seemed strange that people were referncing his Opr stats for his sng ability and I thought I must be wrong about that.

I've seen his name near the top of the sng leaderboard so thought it was weird his numbers were supposedly so bad. But with his volume I do think its possible a breakeven player or worse can find their way up there since its all about one hot stretch each week.

Sure it is. Full Tilt does it. The software allows you to play 16 while reg'd for future tournaments as well. If there's a 24-table limit and you fall to 23, why would "the floodgates be opened?" You can register one more. It's not nearly as complicated as you're making it out to be.

In your opinion, capping tables at 24 is complicated but THIS is "the best solution?"

LOL

+++++11111

/thread

One could make the argument that slowing down the cash games doesn't really affect the play involved. But slowing down the SNG's actually does change the game...because the clock is still running and the levels are going up.

I don't think the idea about, "but what if somebody registers for too many?" as any merit. If they register for too many it would be super-easy for them to just have to wait to bust in a different tourney before their "new 24th tourney" would open for them.

Back when Party/Empire allowed 4 tables at a time that included cash-games and tourneys I believe. I remember on Empire I would sign up for a 5th tourney thinking I was about to bust out of a different one...but then I would make a comeback. So now I had 5 tourneys going but could only play on 4 tables. The breaks weren't synchronized so I would juggle which 4 I had open based on that. I didn't blame Empire for having the rule in place. I'm the one who signed up for the extra tourney. No biggie. When none of the 5 were on break then I would simply not play the one that was still in the early stages. Wasn't happy to be getting blinded out there but it only happened when I was doing well in my other tourneys so not too horrible.

Stars doesn't hide the fact that it's unlimited tourneys on their site. They brag about guys like boku and elky playing 60 at a time or whatever. If they wanted to, they could at least impose SOME kind of limits on it somehow instead of letting the guy who plays 100 at a time continue to do so (referring to the guy at the $1 level DON's who really does play 100 at a time). Clearly it's not that big a deal to Stars to play so many tourneys at a time.

So the argument of, "too tough to keep people from registering for too many" is silly. They just keep it at 24 cash-game table max probably just because they are afraid of what happens if they change it.

FTP can do it.