When regs start using scripts even at nl5-nl10 something must be changed imo. Even tho i dont like the idea of seat me and limit to multi-tabling after all might be a good idea.

Just have must move poker tables.

Without any notice - today on PS.IT they changed our zoom format from 6max to 5max. More rake is better I suppose..

is pokerstars also going to limit the amount of ddos attacks?

This is actually good news and hopefully others will follow. Loved those 5max tables that ongame had. And how is 5max more rake?

Fewer opponents means you play more hands and thus pay more rake. Assuming the rake structure is identical between 6max and 5max.

Doesn't make any difference between 5 and 6 players. Imo.

So you're saying you and your opponents play exactly the same number of hands between 5max and 6max, despite the fact there is 1 less position and you are in the button/blinds 20% more often? Ok

5-max is more aggressive (something like Microgaming/Prima PLO). Less players, higher/lower the bb/100; not rec friendly. 7-8-max would have a nice balance between full and short and you often have at least two weak players instead of one, that should be good for all. Fewer tables, shorter tables? 888poker having a 6-tables cap, well, they don't have that many tables running anyway?

I suspect the 3-5-max tables are not a favourite to succeed but whatever. Not rec friendly as it is more intimidating than 6-max, or you see them happily filling the short tables? Some of them like it a bit shorter (those 40/30 types).

I disagree but there are just opinions after all.

Bad client, bots and no rb. That's to begin with. And t takes days to cashout.

Have you ever played 5max? And did i say anything of that? Imo (you do understand what that means right) doesn't make much difference. Nits gonna nit and lags gonna lag. If anything it makes people playing less tables and that should be good for the recs. You have more action constantly you need less tables.

I think 5max is ok and move tables or cut total table selection is a smart move.

limit number of tables, I think doesn't makes sense limit to 6tables. Thats very very low number. I think limit to 16 tables is ok. Maybe 12. 6 is ridiculous.

And if limit cash game tables, has to limit tournaments and zoom too. Why a tournament amateur player can wait forever to regs fold while regs are 20tabling and cash game amateur play vs someone playing 6 tables

also, one very important thing: if you limit to 6tables, the guys who plays more tables will start playing other sites. I play 16 tables at this moment, all at stars. If stars is limited to 6 tables, I will probably play 6 at stars and 6 at party poker or 6stars + 6 ACR or something like that.

It does make a difference. With identical rake structure, fewer players at the table = more rake paid. The mere fact you play more hands per hour per table = more rake paid. And that's not even accounting for wider ranges due to 1 less player being at the table. How can you not see this? There is no "opinion" about it. It's just a statement of fact.

Again have you ever played 5max? The game doesn't change that much that you could call it "omg more rake is better I guess". For some reason you just seem to think that people will go ape**** when you remove the 12-15% range people play from utg in the traditional 6max.

E and yeah I get your point more hands blalalblatiblaa but the statement I guess more rake is better is just nonsense in this situation.

So they are going to copy-paste Galdond's idea?

not really. Stars announced their plans to cap tables a month ago (July 11-12). Galfond announced their plans this month

i played at FTP during the time tables changed to seat me format... tables were unplayable , lots of grimming , games run for 3 hands and broke a lot , it was a disaster.

maybe stars can limit tables to 12 -10 or something , 6 tables it will be the same because multitable regs will move their action to other sites to keep playing many tables so they aren't going to be playing any faster with these changes.

Regulars being slow was just an excuse, they just don't want them in their website and that's it.

Next steps will probably be no external softwares and maybe anonymous tables.

Inviato dal mio FRD-L09 utilizzando Tapatalk

I grinded 5max for 1 year and a half and yes, it changes.

Regarding the rake, every decent regular has a higher VPIP (28+) and more hands on average get to the Flop.

Regarding the win rate, it depends from your skills. If you particularly suck in the blinds game, your win rate will have a decent drop since you just burn a profitable position (UTG) and won't recover otherwise.

Having said that, I don't think that the only reason pokerstars.it made this choice was some extra rake they get.

Italy isn't a huge market and sometimes NL50 zoom has trouble starting. In the future it will probably get worse, since a new law passed and from 2019 gambling commercials will be totally banned.
Probably they hope that filling tables earlier will help.

In addition to this, the main competitors in the Italian market use 5max tables as a standard, so it's not like you can say ''f**k this, I'm cashing out and play 6max elsewhere''.

Inviato dal mio FRD-L09 utilizzando Tapatalk

Winamax runs 5max and it's not that different compared to stars 6max and there are several regs and recs that play basically the same stats. Point being still you can't say "more rake is better". But yeah that's it for me on this topic no need to derail this anymore.

I guess it will be interesting to see if they start limiting zoom tables and the amount of tourneys you can play too.

Overall the changes seem like a bad idea.

If the regs were only allowed to play 6 tourneys at a time the guarentees of every tournament would have to drop.

As one poster intelligently said limiting tables really accomplishes nothing. Regs will start playing on multiple sites and if anything it could make the games slower.

Everything should just be zoom to get rid of the cancer that is table scripts and bum hunting.

So, basically, what you are trying to say all along is that "Math is idiotic", right?

You are stating that the rake at a 5-max = rake at 6-max
=> rake at 6-max = rake at 7-max, rake at 7-max = rake at 8-max, rake at 8-max = rake at 9-max.

This makes rake at short-handed tables = rake at full ring tables...

Very funny troll attempt by you Kossu.

Need max for zoom

KossuKukkula merely said, that it's unnecessary to get the pitforks out and cry "more rake is better" all over again. it's not his fault some ppl itt are not capable of understanding simple posts.

Hello all , maybe i got this info by mistake...
I normally sent an email to stars to raise or reduce my table cap to force myself to play a certain amount of tables but today i received this message

Thanks for contacting us.

All players will be limited to a default maximum of 10 concurrent real money tables. This limit includes all regular cash games, tournaments, Sit & Gos and Spin & Gos. For play money, this limit is set at 6 tables and the maximum number of Zoom tables you can join at the same time is limited to 4.

Maybe stars will limit to 10 tables after all

Nvm looks like support thought my acc was a .es one and not a .com one