Received email back from betfair ongame made a business decision to remove 3max. Is there any sites left that offer 3max?

Wat, why? Too much collusion?

Gave no reason :

Thank you for contacting Betfair.
Kindly note that our network provider Ongame has made a business decision to remove 3 seated poker games. Please accept our sincerest apologies for any inconvenience caused.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further enquiries.
Kind regards,

Only reason i was on that network since their heads up situation is brutal.

damn only moved to ongame yesterday for 3 max and the very next day they get rid of it

Yeah 3 max is nice, sucks that they removed it. My collusion comment was because I can't think of another reason why they'd remove them, I haven't noticed any collusiony stuff myself.

Its most likely they removed it to increase 6max traffic.

You cant have "million" different games to offer if you have only a few 100 players.

Because at 3 handed 1 fish generates rake with 2 regs, and at 6max the same fish will generate rake with 5 regs. That means more reg on reg pots and the fish lasts longer. 3max has always been bad for Ongame, and although I will miss it their elimination should boost game quality slightly.

wish they'd get rid of the 5bb push or fold tables,attracts the fish and clogs the lobby!

Yea but I would've thought the much larger avg pots would negate that. Tho of course Ongame has all the data and they probably can make the best business-wise decision because of that. Probably.

they will be removed aswell

What is unfair about it? Ongame wants to motivate sites on the network to cultivate players like Y and discourage players like X from playing at their site. Ongame probably thinks it's unfair that winning players keep withdrawing.

Why? Having too many high volume "loyal" players hurts Ongame. Why should they pay someone more to simultaneously reduce their bottom line? You seem to have a high level of entitlement. Ongame doesn't owe you anything, and even if you see it otherwise rakeback, valueback, and other promotions are a bonus, not something you are owed. Ongame should reward recreational players, not your so called "loyal clients".

What does "treated the same way" mean? Should a player that rakes $100 get the same $1000 in rakeback that a player who rakes $3500 gets? That sounds absurd, but if you don't do that you are "discriminat[ing] between the clients". It sounds like you think it's fine for Ongame to care about different volume but not about different player value. You want what's best for you, which is normal, but you seem to have confused a system that is not the best for you with a system that is unfair.

I doubt this very much. Are you saying the sites giving any kind of bonuses to players is illegal? If you were right about it clearly being illegal the result would be everyone getting no bonus or the minimum bonus, not any increase compared to what you are getting now.

When Bwin owned Ongame they did most of those things and contributed the most to the network. I don't think you can say that Amaya is neglecting to do those things given they have only owned Ongame for a short time. It also seems like they have a different long term business plan that is more focused on becoming a casino provider in the US market and poker software licensing than becoming a leading online cardroom. What Amaya ends up doing with Ongame remains to be seen, but I don't think you can blame Essence on them, even if they have maintained it thus far.

As long as Bwin was the largest skin and the largest single source of recreational players it seemed to be doing both. I see Bwin's name in advertising much more often than any of the skins. So they were keeping more cake but also bringing more cake.

Good post.

The main problem for me is that rake is horribly high in the first place, for what sites actually offer.

Anyone played heaven bet? Any thoughts?

Now even 2/4 is full of tables with 5 players sitting out and 1 seat open. the camping epidemic is out of control. Ongame is well and truly dead imo, and it wasn't essence that killed it.

there is no ONG1 and ONG2 anymore. they fusioned tables again. since friday.

i agree essence had nothing to do with it. clearly the problem is a lack of fish, there are always regs there to play them. the factors i can think of that may have caused it:

italian / french / spanish etc. ringfencing

lack of marketing budget to attract new recreational players, skins not taking responsibility for attracting new recreational players and just bringing in regs (higher volume and more rake for them obv). this is unique to a skin network since the stand-alone networks have bigger incentive to attract fish rather than just rely on the bigger skins to market to them and bring them in. essence wasn't really enough incentive and even if it was it came too late to save the network imo. i mean regs are playing waaaaaaaay more volume than fish, more than enough to compensate for essence, so the incentive is still not really there.

part of the lack of marketing budget is that skins competing with eachother offering higher and higher RB deals, leading to less profits for the average skin, and thus less marketing budget per skin on average.

that buggy-as-f*** software they released a couple of years ago chasing away some recreational players.

big skins like bwin realising they are providing all the fish for the network and all the other skins just providing regs and leeching off their fish. betfair prob moving for the same reason.

the general trend in online poker of fewer fish combined with the fact that average ongame reg is weaker and less willing to play other regs compared to sites like stars / tilt.

that hilarious taxi-rank of a heads-up lobby with people sitting at a million tables maybe scaring off some fish? maybe less likely.

the other skin networks like ipoker and microgaming have also taken a hit, so i don't think these problems are unique to ongame, but ongame seems to have been hit the worst.

atleast the withdraws are working nicely at bestpoker, two hours and showed up on my skrill account.

Ongame isn't dead just yet ladies and gents.

Add Goosey82 to the list of ****-bags (changed seat to gain position on the fish).

Dont see what the problem is?? I am sitting at open table trying to start game then fish joins, so I swap seats before all the other regs fill up with position on fish.

Whoever you are you should start the games then I wouldnt need to swap seats, simples.

I think the very fact that you don't see what the problem is most likely the crux of the issue. So I'll spell out the problem for you; IT'S POOR TABLE ETTIQUETTE! There is no rule that says you aren't allowed to do what you are doing, and this certainly isn't exclusive to you. I've seen many players carry out this dispicable act and personally I think it's ill-mannered and outright disrespectful to your fellow players on the table.

Fish or no fish, it is STILL a fellow player, a human being, and shouldn't be granted with any less respect than a more skilled player/reg. So no, it is NOT ok to just swap seats before all the other regs fill up the table and then come to the forum and present yourself all high and mighty and ignorantly ask what the problem is.

Make a judgement call, do what you think is right. Perhaps the best way to go about this is, ask yourself, what would you do or not do at a live poker table?

Agree that it's bad etiquette. But it's also pretty bad that by going through the trouble of starting new tables, playing regs hu for a moment etc, you are most of the time awarded with the worst seat.. makes people start new tables less.

Still a human being?? Get a grip of yourself. Do the 4 regs who insta join to the fish's left within seconds of him sitting down consider the fish's feelings and if he is a human being or not? Essentially by swapping seats before a hand is played I am doing the exact same as the insta join regs.

It is not good etiquette, I accept that. But in this day and age in online poker etiquette is out the window. Scripts/ratholing/table camping/table blocking where regs actually sit out of ongoing full games so no one else can get the seat are all alot worse. Changing seats to get a better position before playing a hand at a table and before the table fills up is not comparable to the above problems that alot of the regs playing my stakes do.

Agree with Goooosey 100%