PokerStars: More than 12 cash game tables at once, possible?

[Josem]

how does your system respond to:
a) long-term future registrations

and/or

b) satellites that automatically subscribe you to a tournament

[hypermegachi]

[ QUOTE ]
how does your system respond to:
a) long-term future registrations

and/or

b) satellites that automatically subscribe you to a tournament

[/ QUOTE ]
well, the simplest solution to these situations is to have them count in the registration limit.

i suppose if you wanted to still give players a lot of freedom in what tournaments to register in, you could have a combination of up to X tournaments registered within Y minutes apart from each other.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
well, the simplest solution to these situations is to have them count in the registration limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

which would mean that the practical limit for many SNG players is less than 12 tables, since they wouldn't be able to queue up future SNGs.

[ QUOTE ]
i suppose if you wanted to still give players a lot of freedom in what tournaments to register in, you could have a combination of up to X tournaments registered within Y minutes apart from each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

there would be many people who would (reasonably) expect that they will start up a number of tables; expect that they'll bust out, and have other ones ready to go. you then hit all these people.



what would be the benefit from hitting tournament players like this with such a cap? who would benefit?

[hypermegachi]

[ QUOTE ]
which would mean that the practical limit for many SNG players is less than 12 tables, since they wouldn't be able to queue up future SNGs.

[/ QUOTE ]
well, the cap is only on registrations. the player could have 20 "running", but another 12 queued, for a total of 32 "active" tables. the 12 is just an arbitrary number, so it can be tweaked and increased.

i kind of dug myself in a hole here, since i'm not a MTT player, so i don't know the tendencies of other players. i've played SnGs, and you just queue, queue, queue.

the only benefit i guess is that it would be fair that both cash and tournament players have a cap, or no cap.

and since i like coming up with random ideas that probably end up being too complicated...for your question about the people who double-up/bust as an early strategy, that could be solved with a queue system like:

- 12 active registrations.
- any registration afterwards is queued, and you will auto-register when one of the active registrations becomes "running." if the tourney is full when it auto-registers, then you're basically screwed.

[Cry Me A River]

No, it would be easy for Stars to implement a similar cap for tournaments if they wanted too. Every tournament has a start time, all they would need is an "expected finish time". Given the data Stars has access too they should be able to come up with a very good estimated end time.

Then just don't allow more than 12 (or whatever) overlapping tournaments. So the fact that you're registered for a tournament next week would not affect your ability to register in tournaments today. Registering for any satellites would assume you're registered for any subsequent tournaments. Though given the nature of overlapping it's probably not going to make a lot of difference.

Occasionally you might be able to get away with more tables if some tournaments run long but in the big picture playing 13 or 14 tournaments instead of 12 for 5 or 10 minutes is no big deal.

The real answer is that Stars isn't worried about a bunch of multi-tabling TAGs flooding the tournaments, particularly thousand player MTTs, and over-fishing.

There's a balancing act there, Stars wants our rake. But at the same time they don't want to be known as being an even tougher/tighter site than they are now. Which is what would happen if overnight half the players currently playing 12 tables suddenly started playing 16 or 20 or 24.