Oh, OK, I must have missed something somewhere. Sorry about that. Makes sense now you've explained it.
Not that it's a particularly big deal for me personally on cash tables though, as I'm a tourney/SNG player and I was just curious.
Obviously when it comes to SNGs I'd prefer it you didn't cap them at all, especially as the tournament bubble is a time when people deliberately time down as a tactic to try and force other shorties to pay a higher blind so that they can limp into the money at the expense of those others. Now that you no longer offer DoNs, where it was actually a legitimate tactic, I'd prefer it that people who do stall for time are playing as many tables as they can afford.
But if you do go ahead with plans for table caps then please don't do it with a "one-size-fits-all" approach — the particular SNG format makes a huge difference to the number of tables which can be played comfortably. For instance, it's easier to play 25 tables of 180mans than it is to have 15 tables of 6max hypers; in fact I usually only have 9 or 10 tables open for 6max hypers. IMO it is much easier in 180s anyway, and I've played thousands of each format; when I was playing DoNs I used to be able keep up with about 32 tables. I think a SNG cap is going to need a much greater deal of flexibility than cash games, particularly when it comes to grinders who like to mix up the formats they play on a regular basis, and if you start off by imposing limits which are too low then you'll need to be able to respond to requests for changes on a much more frequent basis.
TT