[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tuff - what are you waiting on before you elaborate fully?

Get this show on the road....

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, everyone here thinks this is an awful idea. No need to burden you anymore with the senile thoughts of a stupid old man.

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Who would have thought the opportunity to play poker online for absolutely zero costs would be the dumbest thing a poker player could do.

I guess I am just out of touch. I will immediately report to my associates that this idea is a complete non starter with the experienced poker crowd on 2+2.

sigh.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]


TF,

Despite our disagreements in the leg forum, I actually agree with you on some of your criticisms of the sites and the structures they spread, and have posted a lot about same here in the past.

But I don't agree as to the degree to which you take it. I too believe that HUD enabled weak-tight-16tabling-no-playing-ability-so-called-players that infest these forums shouldn't be the ones catered to by businesses that care about the long term and the preservation of their customer base. But that doesn't necessarily imply that absolutely no multi-tabling should be allowed. 4 tables is a very reasonable amount of tables to offer, but not much more than that. Also besides players who play seriously to win, I think you underestimate the action-craving of a lot of (other [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) fish. So I think you need to reconsider on the number of tables, but clearly agree that any software aids are out.

However if your idea has any relation to that dumass duplicate poker, then it's a bad idea no matter how many tables.