Re: Stars: increase maximum tables please
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hate waiting on people who are playing 12 tables at 1 time and take up there whole time bank every time its there turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

and then u leave their table and the fish join, it all works out nicely for them

Re: Stars: increase maximum tables please
 

It is not that unusual to see a casual player complaining about the slowness of the game. It would seem to follow that allowing more tables for the super multitablers would only slow the games down more. This may very well be a turnoff to that casual player, Stars risks alienating some of their customers(primarily new customers, potential great income sources both for Stars and regular players, not good to turn off new customers in this business I would think). Of course I have no way of knowing the income difference for Stars that results from the slowing down of games, as compared to more rake generated by increased max allowed tables, as compared to the effect on the annoyed casual player, etc.

What would be great is if regardless of number of games allowed if an individual player is repeatedy timing out, or nearly timing out, is to require that player to reduce his tables until he is playing a number of tables that does not repeatedly inhibit the flow of the games. Don't know if this is at all possible, frankly I could care less if a hudbot plays 50 tables, as long as they do not habitually time out and/or go into time remaining warnings.

Re: Stars: increase maximum tables please
 

I highly doubt I'm the one slowing games down

Re: Stars: increase maximum tables please
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is not that unusual to see a casual player complaining about the slowness of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah we don't want these players to go because they are getting bored waiting for someone to make decisions on their other 15 games first. Some players play far too many tables than their talent allows.

I think that for each additional table you play you should get 1 or 2 seconds less to act on each table so as to respect the other players who are constantly waiting. If you can't handle the reduced timescales tough.

12 tables not enough? Don't make me laugh.

Re: Stars: increase maximum tables please
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hate waiting on people who are playing 12 tables at 1 time and take up there whole time bank every time its there turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

players who take a long time are just as often (possibly more often) casual 1-4 tablers. i bet i take less time to act than the majority of players while 12 tabling. my biggest concern is if 16 tables will dry up games faster simply because 16 table grinders are *usually* winning players

Re: Stars: increase maximum tables please
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hate waiting on people who are playing 12 tables at 1 time and take up there whole time bank every time its there turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

players who take a long time are just as often (possibly more often) casual 1-4 tablers. i bet i take less time to act than the majority of players while 12 tabling. my biggest concern is if 16 tables will dry up games faster simply because 16 table grinders are *usually* winning players

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with this statement at all. However, adding to the max tables has the potential of exacerbating those problems associated with the supermultitablers. How can one say definitively how many tables is too much? I don't have an answer, I just hope Stars errs on the side of caution before changing the present format, after all they are number one in the industry and have a nice mix(for them) of competent regulars and content recreational players.

Re: Stars: increase maximum tables please
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What i never got about this is why limit cash game tables, but no limit on tourney/sng tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's a pain in the ass to develop software that allots for tournaments that people register far in advance.

[/ QUOTE ]


I really don't think this should be that hard honestly and always thought it was a strange excuse.
I used to play as many MTT's as I could on Party/Empire and I was limited to 4. If I was about to get knocked out of one of them I would sign-up for a new tourney I liked that was about to start.
Sometimes the one I was about to get knocked out of I would make a stellar short-stack comeback and be stuck with 5 tourneys but only be able to play 4 at a time. So I would frequently be sitting-out of one of the tourneys or perhaps closing one of the tourneys that was on break to try to sneak in a few hands at the new one where I was getting blinded-out or whatever.

I'm not advocating that Stars should do this. But obviously it's not THAT freaking hard to just limit the number of tourney tables a player is allowed to have open even if he is registered for more than the max allowed.

Re: Stars: increase maximum tables please
 

[ QUOTE ]

I think that for each additional table you play you should get 1 or 2 seconds less to act on each table so as to respect the other players who are constantly waiting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think thats a decent compromise, something like 1 sec less to act & 5 sec less on the time bank per table added above 12.
If your capable of playing 12 tables and have time for more, then the lower time limit shouldn't be a problem.

Re: Stars: increase maximum tables please
 

I really dont think 12-tablers are slowing down the games, casual players are often way slower because they're not used to think quickly. While 12+ tabling (with a couple of tournaments) I can easily maintain 65+ hands per hour tables playing a nitty 12/7 game so i definitely could handle some more tables. Big multitablers slowing down the game is only a legend and people playin 1 or 2 tables should enjoy this because it's quite easy for them to exploit even some of the best 12+ tablers.

Re: Stars: increase maximum tables please
 

Stars response:

Hello PestBoy,

Thank you for your comments. I will forward your request on to our
management team for their further review, and if they receive enough
requests, you may see changes in the future.

Please let us know if we can assist you further.

Regards,

Dan C