Why not have a monopoly Poker stars?

[ChexNFX]

No, it actually wouldn't.

[SlapPappy]

Practice? I mean, listen, we're talking about practice. Not a game. Not a game. ... Not the game. We're talking about practice, man. ... We're talking about practice. ... We're talking about practice, man. What are we talking about? Practice. We're talking about practice, man.

[Little_Luck]

It took me way too long to realize you weren't talking about playing monopoly for money on pstars.

[jah7_fsu1]

Lot of fighting for who would be the thimble I believe.

[halsted]

I was talking about playing monopoly. But not for money. I want to improve my monopoly game at pokerstars.net

[MagCFO]

[ QUOTE ]
I was talking about game selection, not rakeback.

A site with my choice of 60 5/10 nlhe games would make up for no rakeback.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take a class in business and economics and you would understand why this idea is horrible.

What are you going to do if they double rake? Close your account? Take you money? Have [censored] tournament selection? Etc, etc, etc..

There must be competition to make the best product for a consumer.

[mbpoker]

I agree that having one completely dominant site is bad. But how many sites are really needed? 2 or 3 or 10?