Tuff Fish's proposal cleared by CA Sec. of State for petition circ.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To those of you who are so greedy and short sighted as to think that this is a bad thing because it specifies only a single table, you are idiots.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please sir show us the error of our ways. Tuff you are a true visionary. I predict (with Viper like insight) that all the majors will be turning to 1 table max (by the 2nd Thursday in October), embrace the future.

Engineer and others, have you gone over this proposal with a fine tooth comb? I am extremely leery of the idea of supporting this given its genesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference of opinion is this:

1. Tuff believes that 1 table limit will sustain a high percentage of fish on the site, because they wont be eaten up by multitablers. I can't argue with this.

2. As multitablers, we want access to those fish. We want all of their dollars right effing now, forget the future. I can't argue with this either.

3. The consequences of #1 are: Sharks will only be able to eat fish one table at a time (low winrate), but forever.

4. The consequences of #2 are: Shars will be able to eat a lot more fish, but for a limited time. (I see lots of SSNL/MSNL players getting real jobs recently & LHE is starting to pickup popularity again, because the fish are fewer are farer between)

Will FT/Stars limit multitabling in the future? I doubt it. I think they believe that the economy is self balancing. (which it might be)

Does it hurt or help to have a single state with sites that only allow 1 tabling? I don't see how it could hurt anyone. If you are a shark in Cali, you will have that one Cali table open (per site), and 842 tables of FT/Stars open.

[Grasshopp3r]

Here is Tuff's site with the initiative language.

http://www.caonlinepoker.org/

[Truthiness24]

You're a fool and a troll if you oppose this.

[LeapFrog]

I am aware of Tuff's arguments. I would bet even 80 year old pensioners play 2 tables or maybe 3! Fish like action (high vpp anyone?).

If one was seeking investment capital for a poker site with a 1 table max any financial adviser worth his salt who looked at the situation would laugh you out of the room(they are all going to laugh at you).

Your costs are going to be almost identical over the long run (less bandwidth obv, less 'server power' needed) but the biggest expense is going to be personnel/advertising -- so why shoot yourself in the foot? I don't buy the multitabling sharks killing off all the fish theory either. Guess what, almost every site apparently sees it the same way!

PacificPoker was ahead of its time though, they had some real trend setters in charge. As an example, they let me cash out a $100 bonus after playing 100 hands micro limit. I bet their exces have all gone fortune 500 now [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]


--- Also, thanks for posting the link to the initiative.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
I am aware of Tuff's arguments. I would bet even 80 year old pensioners play 2 tables or maybe 3! Fish like action (high vpp anyone?).

[/ QUOTE ]

For every maniac that goes busto every Saturday night, there are 300 weak-passive slow-bleeders that fill tables Sunday through Friday.

[george w]

does this mean there would be only one state run poker site with no competition? that's not as good as multiple sites obviously.

or if there are multiple sites would you be able to play one table at each site which would make it possible to multitable?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer and others, have you gone over this proposal with a fine tooth comb? I am extremely leery of the idea of supporting this given its genesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty straightforward now. TF had to reduce it to a single page, so there's no place to hide.

I see Tuff Fish is back to calling people idiots. I'm not surprised.

[Robin Foolz]

there are no reasonable reasons for restricting multitabling. a few obvious reasons:

-on the business side of things: it severely cuts the amount of games and hence revenue for the operators. operators have no legitimate business reason (unless they hate money) to shortchange revenue this way.

-a shark will very likely have a higher winrate single tabling, so the idea that one can protect fish by giving the fish even less of a chance to survive a shark encounter is... dumb?

-there are more fish than there are sharks. fish/shark ratio guarantees there will always be fish. restricting mutitabling because one believes it lengthens the lifespan of fish as a group and as a result ensures profitable games is a flawed and proven incorrect model. see: partypoker (pre-frist) and now pokerstars.

-fish like to multitable, too.

-and so forth

my belief is that informed people don't support stupid proposals by ignorant people, hence why i stick to my 'nay' vote.

[dlk9s]

I really hope this thread turns into another bazillion page argument with Tuff_Fish. Really, I do.

[mo42nyy]

[ QUOTE ]
there are no reasonable reasons for restricting multitabling. a few obvious reasons:

-on the business side of things: it severely cuts the amount of games and hence revenue for the operators. operators have no legitimate business reason (unless they hate money) to shortchange revenue this way.

-a shark will very likely have a higher winrate single tabling, so the idea that one can protect fish by giving the fish even less of a chance to survive a shark encounter is... dumb?

-there are more fish than there are sharks. fish/shark ratio guarantees there will always be fish. see: partypoker (pre-frist) and now pokerstars.

-fish like to multitable, too.

-and so forth

my belief is that informed people don't support stupid proposals by ignorant people, hence why i stick to my 'nay' vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is the most illogical post I've read in a while
from a site's business standpoint i agree with you but other than that nothing you said makes any sense

restricting mutitabling because one believes it lengthens the lifespan of fish as a group and as a result ensures profitable games is a flawed and proven incorrect model.
WRONG
The ratio does not remain the same. More sharks multiable than fish, when this happens the single tabling fish end up at tables with a lot less fish and lot more sharks and get destroyed a lot faster

some fish multiable
but they dont play 12 tables at a time and a great number of them just play one table
Playing 12 tables and waitng for ood hands is boring to them- sharks and break even nits who may be semi-profitable because of rakeback multiable a lot more than fish

B/w you and tuffish you're the ignorant one
His proposal is better than anything else that has been proposed so far and if you care at all about the future of online poker you would sign it