If only there were 24 7 card stud games running at once world wide, then we could give it a shot.

Whether it takes more skill or not to profitably play 1500 hands/hr isn't the point I'm making. And for someone trying to eek out a living grinding online poker playing 30 hands or 1500 hands an hour shouldn't be an issue, only their hourly should be. 'Dying of boredom' also shouldn't be an issue if it's more profitable playing 30 hands/hr.

Also the 150-200 hands/hr you mention one tabling online is also problematic as it suggests you're talking about zoom which in itself is no better than multitabling when you're talking about the quality of the game.

Scrolling through hole cards until you get AA is no good for the game in exactly the same way as 24 tabling regular tables is. Zoom doesn't make people play suboptimally.....being dealt 30 hands an hour at one table with the same players does.

I think some people are still under the misapprehension that players playing 9/6 and 20 tabling actually exist in today's poker environment.

They don't exist but what does exist is a whole lot more players playing 6+ tables and playing a much more solid strategy.

In fantasy land it would be really interesting to see what the games would look like if sites had a one tabling only day where staked players and bots were not allowed to play. I'd love to see what that traffic and game quality would look like online.

Yeah well I wouldn't know as I've barely played online over the last few years but as long as you can multi-table and put in high volume the games will never be good.

This is in reply to dogarse

Isn't bovada 100% anonymous tables though? How can you create a safe and friendly enviourment for Westerners to bumhunt if it's all anon?

if one can't multitable, how is one going to ever make any money?

As it stands, this doesn't even make any sense, and it's unclear what "shouldn't" is supposed to mean.

Firstly, "low stakes" is relative of course. Generally online it refers to 50NL - 200NL, although you can't compare the standard here to the lowest stakes live games. Standards at equivalent stakes online and live vary immensely, in the main, because of the number of people who have access to those games: The more people who have access to a competitive pursuit, then the higher the skill level of the participants. Therefore it is unrealistic to expect games in the 50NL - 200NL range not to be populated by a lot of good players. (Although you overestimate the number of professionals that play at these levels- and they are not mostly populated by pros, as you think.)

As the audience has grown, and the pools' skill set has increased, the entry stake for beginners has continually been lowered. So, whereas a few years ago a fish wouldn't have been in too deep at small stakes, he now has to find a home at micro-stakes.

So when you say "low stakes recreationals players shouldn't be playing in games that are mostly polulated by pros"...

1. They aren't, although the standard is good.

2. Online Low Stakes are too high for recreational players in general.

3. It will NEVER be possible to have recreationals playing 50NL - 200NL online with games as soft as you're imagining. (Assuming a non-segregated player pool.)

4. Micro-stakes exist, and they are the level that recreational players will have to remain at- if they want to survive- until/unless they improve. (NB. Obviously lots of players who class themselves as "recreational" can take care of themselves outside of micro-stakes, but in general most recreationals are what we would call "fun players.")

So, to conclude, it's very much an unrealistic dream.

I think, all else being equal, as standards across the board improve, it's the sites who have to be the ones to eat the costs by reducing effective rake if a healthy environment (or any type of environment) is to be preserved.

If ,in fantasy land, micro stakes were completely removed then 50NL to 200NL online would become a fair bit softer online. Back in the day around the time online poker started 50NL was the lowest NL stake offered on PartyPoker. If you deposited money online on partypoker and wanted to play a NL game that was the lowest stake you could play.

Anyway, there is really no reason for a site to go back to that model and it would benefit no one except the players that play those stakes. Those were also different times and the clientele was mostly North American but a removal of the lowest stake would have an effect on softening the next stake up. That's "a" reason why those stakes are so soft live. They are the entry level and often the lowest stakes offered live.

The same way they do in the casino

mason malmuth plays ONE TABLE, LIMIT (STUD), MIDSTAKES.

he suggets raising rake everywhere except for MIDSTAKES,LIMIT GAMES, people act surprised.

I personally don't believe the poker ecosystem (in any variant.stakes) should ever be about funneling out the top 9-33% of the game so that the top 1-8% can win more from remaining two thirds (with rake increases targeting 9-33%). This eventually (and inevitably) will reduce the lifespan of the house, on the basis that the top 9-33% generate MUCH more rake fighting within 1-33% to access the two thirds, than they do being "partially force" excluded from the pool.

Subsequently, the top 1-13% would cannibalize the rest of the pool much faster without the protective barrier of the 14-33% getting in the way, unless you have an endless pool of reloading fish. This live poker exclusion approach just isn't symmetrical to online poker at all. Note: Obviously I've used certain figures for simplicity.

PS (the snesolution wouldve been to reduce SNE down to the top 2-3% rakers per each variant.stakes. So SNE could have been left untouched at micros, smalls, highs per top 2-3% rakers by variant.stakes etc... paid say via release on a quarterly basis....and find a way to encourage fish to play more volume and get better, maybe buy training site etc )

Thats the beauty of it - on this fantasy site its unlikely that people need to bumhunt get get an edge if reg:rec ratio is good. In 2009 people didnt even know what a jesus seat was and yet all pros were making bank and there were plenty of fish (same like scripts bumhunting was one of the first SYMPTOMS created do to decreasing reg:rec ratios - scripts then were the logical next step). You could even do global waitinglists and random seat assignments. Im not a fan of anonymous not only bc i dont like but bc i think poker is personal and it should be more fun for fish as well if they see who their nemesis is, etc

You are assuming the top 9-33% would be funneled out because they can no longer win in that environment or have an expected winrate while the remaining bottom two thirds would remain because their motivation to play is not to expect to win?

You are correct from a site's perspective that it would have negative impact on the generated rake if that top 9-33% group was excluded from the pool. Obviously this is why sites have no problem with HuD use, multitabling, etc or whatever else can help push reg edges closer to one another at a given table/stakes.

I disagree with your last point about a faster rate of cannibalization. Sure if you excluded that 9-33% group the top group would achieve higher winrates but more players from the bottom tier would also break into the positive more often in that environment. With a greater disparity in expected winrates/lossrates less rake would go to the site and more money would go to the players which is a good thing for the health of the game.

You are assuming the top 9-33% would be funneled out because they can no longer win in that environment or have an expected winrate while the remaining bottom two thirds would remain because their motivation to play is not to expect to win?

You are correct from a site's perspective that it would have negative impact on the generated rake if that top 9-33% group was excluded from the pool. Obviously this is why sites have no problem with HuD use, multitabling, etc or whatever else can help push reg edges closer to one another at a given table/stakes.

I disagree with your last point about a faster rate of cannibalization. Sure if you excluded that 9-33% group the top group would achieve higher winrates but more players from the bottom tier would also break into the positive more often in that environment. With a greater disparity in expected winrates/lossrates less rake would go to the site and more money would go to the players which is a good thing for the health of the game.

A proportion of 9-33% would range merge into 1-8%, what proportion who knows. I used 5% for simplicity. The rest either lose to rake or net withdraw and give up, i guess. and yes, the type of two thirds im talking about, do not expect to win.

1-8% would annihilate this two the thirds with volume and winrate. And by the time a new protective barrier emerge.... the ecosystem has lost Y% of 9-33% Bankrolls plus Z% funds that 1-8% win from Two Thirds which doen't come back into the system.. but just up and out of the game and in the pockets of the very top tier. The health of the games only improve for the very very best-- no one else imo.

OP confirmed senile.

I never said this.

MM

400 online has a relatively lower rake and the scores can be pro level compared to a couple bb100 with 200 plus stacks at 200. It motivates to move up.

200 is technically medium limits online and the rake is live 10/20 euro relative and the games are relatively tougher and tough at both compared to a limit lower, though 100 online is generally tough also while 5/10 live may not be, and the euro rakes are relatively the same.

A little lower 200 online rake would be enough because it already has a potential 30 rb. The 100 and below could have a table cap.

So we just have to get the players playing micros online to play nl1k+, sounds realistic. Get them drunk too.

We'd also need to restrict the regs, so learning from live poker, how about some voting system by people at the table? That way we can vote out the best players, so the weaker players don't lose as fast.

Most of the traffic online is not in cash games. So as much as we can bang on about what to do to improve cash games at various buy ins and game types...we can't forget that online most people are playing MTTs; Spins and SNGs.

I think most recreational players play MTTS SNGs and Spins. That's my experiece and observation.

Not a bad read for NVG this thread, but kind of borerline pointless, unless we take in all of online real money poker games/game types - not just the cash games. That is if we're doing the usual how to make online poker better dance.

Nice observations. What if cash games were structured more like cashout tournaments?

I earnestly wonder what percentage of multi-tabling players respond by playing fewer tables at higher stakes on the same poker site, as opposed to adding the missing tables at one or more alternate poker rooms.

these so called "bonuses" are actual winnings. people (used to) play 24 and still win against other players, it has literally nothing to do with the amount of hands played. you dont get paid a cent to play hands by the site.

I don't really understand what you're saying but I would remove micros. Smallest game should be NL200.