[BluffTHIS!]

The reason most of you nay-sayers on reducing the number of tables one is allowed to play are taking that position, is that in reality, contrary to what you think, you are very mediocre players who don't have a win in the game without software assistance and/or the use of simplistic strategies like short-stacking nl games. So naturally you aren't willing to consider arguments, even well-founded ones, that reducing the number of tables could actually add to a site's bottom line as jek is saying.

Let's look at why and in what circumstances losing players are willing to continue to lose on a long term basis, and thus contribute rake to a site's bottom line on a long term basis. It is because they have an enjoyable time and lose a little slowly, even if steadily. But when they are faced with the same lineup of 12-tablers and their clones on every table, then hitting 2 to 9 outters won't let them have a winning session often enough to keep them coming back. They will instead lose a lot and fast and won't enjoy the experience. And they will tell their friends that. Any structures and policies that encourage overly tight play is bad for the game and thus bad for the sites and their bottom lines, although the same can be said for the other extreme of structures/policies that encourage too much action.

So all you weak-tight bonus-whoring short-stacking mediocre poker playing pussies can be greedy and insist the sites allow you to kill the sheep instead of shearing them. But what will happen is that rather than having a decent guaranteed income from those sheep, you will be on tables full of wolves and soon after be saying, "you want fries with that?".