lol at chat abuse being a negative for table caps

Recs looking to try out poker typically don't like being told that their mother who passed away last year should die in a grease fire...

It's just common sense. Sorry, but I don't think players cussing each other out at the tables and slowing down the game is good for online poker.

i don't recall saying they would enjoy it - i doubt you'll find many examples of recs actually leaving a site because of chat abuse tho

(it's just common sense)

Which is why Bovada - a site with only anonymous tables - is the fishiest site on the internet.

If you're going to make grand assertions, you need to back it up with evidence. Where is your evidence that recs leave quicker when tables are anonymous?

Most chat abuse will occur when players are not in the hand, so there is negligible effect on game speed. Chat abuse is quite a rare occurrence anyway. I barely come across it, even from 1 tabling recs.

Regs who play 20 tables slow the game down far, far more. And it's not even close.

Bovada is the fisheist site on the net because of all the Asian sportsbetters who are new to the game. Take away the anon aspect and nothing changes.

It's the player pool causing that...not the anon tables. From what I can see the "anon Myth" is strong. Just listen to what you're saying..."Bovada is the easiest site to win money playing poker on."

Does that statement not totally contradict the claim that anonymity helps recs by preventing them from losing as easily when regs are saying that an anon site is the easiest site to win on?

Not saying you're incorrect but it could just as easily be down to the rec:reg ratio.

I personally don't care if anonymity becomes the standard in the industry. As I believe it changes absolutely nothing.

The only thing Bovada did to successfully decrease win rates of regs was to add non-synced breaks on their MTTs. That aspect has far more of a negative impact on MTT regs than anon tables.

it does not contradict it if

You don't actually know that though. You could very well be right but you are still just speculating.

It's also about positive impact for recs, not negative impact for regs - they're not the same thing.

I don't think that poker is anywhere close to dying. Pokerstars still has 120,000 players playing online every night at peak hours.

I bet this number would be 400,000 (maybe more) if people were actually winning and not not quitting after breaking even over 100,000 hands due to rake.

Um, yes it does.

I also don't like anonomys tables. It's not fair if a guy can exploititivly 3 bet you with 25% of his range on the button and you don't know if it's some nit that's doing it or a guy going for a max exploit strategy.

Poker is an opponent based game. Without being able to make reads on players you might as well as call it something else like "Pushing Equity"

Actually, I do know that...

Because, the win rates of players on Pokerstars are the same when they make the transition to Bovada. Players have posted graphs demonstrating this in the Bovada thread. Yet, the Anon Myth lives on.

I've challenged anon Myth supporters to post data that supports their claim and the only data posted proves that win rates of winning players stay the same with anonymity...

Pokerstars has a weird way of counting players. A player multitabling on 6 tables counts as 6 players, so the real amount of players is actually only a fraction of the displayed playercount.

according to MPN network bad players loose faster at anonymus tables:

https://www.cardschat.com/news/bad-p...lose-more-8888

No, you don't.

Christ man, it can't be that ****ing hard. Are you incapable of imagining any other reason for this? Are you presuming the games on Bovada are exactly the same as Stars?

No it doesn't. Maybe the games are less beatable without anon tables, which is possible, though counterintuitive. More probable is that the games are more beatable without anon tables, since regs get more value out that information than recs. Maybe it has no effect at all. But you have no evidence either way. You're just guessing, and it's a bad guess.

I have no idea how much it would cost, so that could be a terrible idea, but I ask you guys anyway.

If poker sites don't earn much from rake on high stakes, why don't they make high stakes (and only high stakes) free of rake so regs could battle even with very small edges. Costly, yes, but marketing from that would be very good because of more hs action than anywhere else.

The number would be >400k if you still had USA,Spain,Italy,France and lots of asian countries allowed to play on stars.com

they're a huge problem. it's not even debatable.
letting good players mass multi table (with more and more sophisticated software as time goes on) is a sure fire way to destroy the games.


"fish are gonna be fish" simply isn't true for most fish. they need to have fun while losing their money or they spend it somewhere else.why do you think casinos treat their losing customers so well?



it's also funny to say what a poker sites revenue stream should be. they're running a business-if someone else can make a living in the process it's a happy byproduct.


Now if galfond starts a site hopefully it will be a well run site with great software and fast payouts.But it's not gonna be some poker pro utopia.

I expect this site to have the same clientele as WPEX did before it closed, with or without the rake.

Wow, I never knew this don't know about you guys.

if a site had a low table cap with lots of recreational players you would have to be a pretty ****ty pro to beat it for 2 bb/100 hands.


Even in your worst case scenario of 4 tabling for 2 bb/100 hands - that's probably closer to 12-15 bucks an hour with rakeback.
In what other business can one have a measly few thousand dollars to their name to "invest", sit on their ass playing a game all day, produce absolutely nothing of value whatsoever and make 15 bucks an hour which is more than a lot of people in this country make working.

You're right it's not difficult to learn to use one. So anywhere there is relatively easy money there will be an influx of people who make said money. So the smarter people who have a simple time learning to use a hud play more and more tables, fleece the suckers faster while tightening the games up in the process and the suckers the sites need to keep feeding this mass multitablers find something (almost anything at this point with how boring online poker has become) to do with their time and money.Which is exactly what's happened over the years in online poker.

Are they getting more value? I would argue that a reg on 4 tables putting all his concentration on those 4 tables is more deadly than a reg spreading his focus across 20 tables with the help of a HUD. The data shows it's about the same.

I don't think I'm guessing when the documented win rates of players on Pokerstars is the same when those same players are on Bovada. I would say YOU and Bovada are guessing, though. Because, you're sure as hell not presenting any data to back up the claim that anonymity helps recs....that's for sure.

The site has been around for years now. Where are all the graphs showing that losing players are losing money less on Bovada? There should be thousands of examples proving this by now. Where are they? It'll be really interesting to see what happens on Bovada now that Ignition is separating the sports betters from the poker player pool.

I would almost bet that a reg playing 20 tables without a HUD would be less effective than a reg playing 4 tables without a HUD. For all you and Bovada know...you're helping the regs by capping them at 4 tables. The business model may be more effective by simply removing the HUDS and not capping the tables. It would almost be much more annoying for a reg who developed a 20 table strategy using HUDS to keep trying to play 20 tables without a HUD.