if only someone thought to point this out before

As with prunes, 6 accomplishes what you're trying to accomplish while also keeping the higher volume guys satisfied.

They want you to sit down at the table, watch the table. Play the table. Engage with the game present and make the dynamics more closely to what they are at a live table.
They sure as hell will not have up to 18 tables MTT's.
If they allow 6 table cash games, they will prolly not allow more than 8 table MTT's. And they won't allow 6 table cash + 8 table MTT simultanously.


I personally tended to 4 tables as well gameplay wise. Just wanna see the max difference the table cap can have. But I agree that RIO needs to keep an eye out for themselves first.
A cool site that goes broke 5 months after is no good.

Again I am marvelled by the care of thought galfond applies to this project, but on the other site I am really ****ing confused. They have to pick 1 background colour because - as of now - the software doesn't allow for changing between the 4 background colours??
What the **** have they done the last 2-3 years? I cannot believe that this takes a substantial amount of time to code.
It's the effing background colour.

4 zoom tables is a snooze fest. 6 regular tables = shoot me now

Why not just choose not to play rio and live instead? You must undestand why they are making it 4-6 tables max right?

I think that limiting the amount of tables is not a good solution.
The problem in the first place is not that a reg plays 12 tables, the problem is that he takes so much time to make even trivial decisions because of that.
Currently on PS preflop when you are in the blinds you have 15 seconds before your time bank is activated and 11 seconds before your hand is auto folded otherwise. That is a lot, too much I think.
Why not just limit the time to auto-fold to say 5 seconds. At the same time increase the time bank in a way that facilitates to think about actual difficult decisions. I would even go one step further and give those players that usually act quickly extra time on their time bank as a reward.
This way a reg can play as many tables as he wants (or believes he can handle), while only very slightly decreasing the experience for recs.
I think this would be a solution that it fair and reasonable to everyone involved, the poker site included.

I'm not convinced this is true. Indeed, when Stars announced their table caps, they even admitted that mass-tablers don't take any longer with decisions than 1-tablers. In my experience, masstablers are auto-piloting (using the "fold to any bet" button, for instance), while 1-tabling beginners are often slow, perhaps because they are counting their outs, or working out the pot odds.
FWIW, I'm in favour of table limits, but I don't think speed of decisions is a good justification for them. The reg:rec ratio, or what Galfond calls "game quality", is much more important.

Like ArtyMcFly mentioned this ain't true. A reg who can play 12 tables autopilots a lot so he doesn't take that much time because of that.

Sorry Arty, but you're incredibly wrong. One of the main reasons I stopped playing online (since I was only breakeven by the end anyway) was that every game I was playing (mostly 6-max) was completely ruined by MULTIPLE mass tablers usually taking an average of 10-20 seconds longer per decision. On every. single. hand. And anytime I re-raised one of them, they'd timebank and go consult their charts/hh's before making a decision... or talk to the others in their stable, or whatever. It was infuriating. I was playing 6 tables myself by the end, no scripts, to alleviate the boredom.

I wonder instead of limiting tables, is there an intelligent way to put a cap on decision time across all the tables you have open. If you look at a poker room ecosystem as a whole, surely it would be huge benefit to keep the games progressing more quickly instead of endless tanking on every hand.

I don't know when you quit playing but this is atleast these days wery far away from the truth. And the part about the charts is just hilarious. I used to masstable at stars and 90% of the other masstabling regs played just as fast as any other player. Most of them uses probably software like starshelper/caption and hotkeys.

Almost 100% wrong on MTTs. The only 'quality' of play that matters to MTT players is the size of guarantee. Anything that reduces this (and this is a really big issue for a new site) would be poison. Also, MTTs are usually 9 handed and there is no slowing of play.

Unless they are out of their minds they would not restrict MTTs at all. Sites like party are basically doing everything they can to get more players playing, including apparently sponsoring the players themselves, so the idea of restricting legit players would be utterly moronic.

There's plenty of times where a rec player will type "ZZZZZZZZZ" in the chat cuz some multitabler has a hard decision on one table and starts timing down like like 4+ tables. It's super annoying, not to mention you end up with nit bots on every table when you allow people to 10+ table. Coming from a rec player that is not a fun game to be in cuz of the lag from a player playing to many tables and nitty/super boring games.

And there are several times when the rec takes his time cause he has no clue what to do. Most of the masstablers play fast because they have a plan for most situations. And I'm all for the low table limits. Just saying that masstabling players don't slow the game as much as people think. In my experience the 2 tabling recs take a lot more time and slows the game down just as much. They chat, take their time, look at the charts call a friend etc.

6 tables sounds right to me

fyp

How inconsiderate of them. Perhaps they can just deposit directly into your account to save you time .... only then chat, take their time, call their friends etc. so as not to inconvenience the winning players ?

Maybe it's just the site I play on but I don't see recs timing all the way down regularly, just the players who seem to be stacking lots of tables.

.

Actually it does take a lot of time to code. NVG doesn't for the main seems to realise that building software from scratch actually takes quite a bit of time.

MPN just released new software that they built from scratch due to the old software being poor and having to be built across so many platforms now. It took somewhere between 18 months - 2years and they have released a minimum viable product to start without bells and whistles.

I would imagine RIO poker will offer all these options at some point but for launch they won't have all the features in place because they want to just get launched.

I agree with you on this. Not only does stars data indicate that they don't take more time.
They also run I believe a algorathim which limits tables if players are taking too long. I saw this in a tweet by Alex Scott who used to work as a software developer for stars (he developed this). He now works for MPN and is behind their software re launch.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I have a good idea how long it takes to build from scratch; this thread has been running almost 2 years.

Around the time of the "beginning", Paradise ran cash games without tournaments, same for Planet. I do not think that was sustainable by 2002, nor would it be today.

I am not sure what you would require to launch what you call "a minimum viable product", I would say it depends on what gets liquidity in the market. However, game speed, some multi-tabling and MTTs, and a good mobile interface are required. Competing sites will have all these.

(We used to see endless debates on 2+2 about "multi-color decks" and other similar "features", none of which built liquidity or player numbers. Those "features" are more vanity for sites than traffic builders.)

I have no idea what are you trying to say. I admit that english aint my 1st language but still. Perhaps you could explain it to me then?

Might be. Allso what you play etc. But the whole point is what Arty and Buffy are saying. Masstablers don't slow the games down as much as people think they do. They do make them more boring for the recs that's true. Not chatting, playing straightforward even nitty etc.

The long delays can be very annoying and a major turn-off. (It's one reason why I usually play Zoom if I'm on Stars). But Pokerstars admitted that slow play it's not always caused by multitablers:
(My emphasis added). Source: https://pokerfuse.com/news/poker-roo...es-six-tables/

BTW, I don't think table caps will necessarily speed up the action. Regs will probably think even more deeply about decisions, or pause even when they have easy decisions, in order to hide timing tells. FWIW, on Unibet, where there is a table cap at the lowest stakes, no hotkeys, and a lot of casual players on mobiles, the action appears to be a fair bit slower than it is on Stars. I can't say I've pulled out a stopwatch though. :/

Sure.

You seemed to be complaining that recreational/losing players are taking a little "extra time" to lose to you, wasting time by doing things that to them constitute playing poker.

Allow them the time they seem comfortable with, without them there is no game. Is that clear enough ?

Your opinion of the UKGC is not grounded in reality. It is a corrupt organisation that is not fit for purpose.

dude, what is even your arguement here? Size of guarantee is not affected.

All my points stand. It's strange that you think, they wouldn't cut MTT's for the same reasone they cut cashgames. The pros apply almost as much to MTT's as they do to cashgames.