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

[Nologo]

[ QUOTE ]

I do not subscribe to the belief that there are unending supplies of rec players eager to deposit money where there is little chance of success. If you clean them out too quickly, they are gone for good.




[/ QUOTE ]

Um, isn't that exactly what you are?

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One tabling online poker would be the most miserable experience. I don't wish it on anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gamblers looking for action will HATE single tabling, especially full-ring limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

The counter to this is that there are plenty of degens at live tables, not only single tabling but doing so with a slow ass dealer.

I don't really have an opinion on the matter since I don't live in California (though I do think getting a state to have some form of legalized online poker, regardless of nature, will pave the way for other states). One consequence of this will most likely be much softer tables even factoring out the reduced concentration of sharks.

I guess I will have to go read his document at some point; I don't even know the particulars of who can run sites and play on them in his initiative (so maybe I do need to have an opinion).

[snowbank]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My belief is that multitabling pros were killing online poker as surely as the UIGEA did. This provision, for which I have taken much heat, is intended to ensure some longivity to the site and to the industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

You took heat because you couldn't prove your belief, which is contrary to the business models of the biggest, most successful sites.

Anyway, we've plowed this ground before. You obviously aren't looking for our support here. You need a lot of signatures...I think you have a long, potholed road ahead of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Truthiness24]

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

[TheEngineer]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Any reasons, or is that simply a statement of fact?

[disjunction]

Maybe I missed this, but is there any reason to think that single-tabling provisions won't be a complete joke? I mean, the people who want to get around it will get around it, one would think. How are they going to enforce this?

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I missed this, but is there any reason to think that single-tabling provisions won't be a complete joke? I mean, the people who want to get around it will get around it, one would think. How are they going to enforce this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not a computer guy, but I would explore this option to prevent, or at least severely hinder multitablers.

a) The software wouldn't allow a second table to be opened on any account.

b) The software doesn't allow a second session to be started on the same computer even if for a different account.

c) The software grabs the cursor when it is the player's turn to act, and doesn't allow it to be moved from the active poker table window until the player acts. If this provision is defeated or prevented, the software simply closes the offending player's session.

I suspect there are any number of ways multitabling can be prevented. The software can scan your other active programs and if it sees another poker program running, it closes it's own session.

And on and on and on.

Now focus on the positives of getting this passed. It will, in all likelyhood, foster a poker boom for both online and live poker. The WSOP really took off after internet poker became popular.

Be happy.

Tuff

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I missed this, but is there any reason to think that single-tabling provisions won't be a complete joke? I mean, the people who want to get around it will get around it, one would think. How are they going to enforce this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not a computer guy, but I would explore this option to prevent, or at least severely hinder multitablers.

a) The software wouldn't allow a second table to be opened on any account.

b) The software doesn't allow a second session to be started on the same computer even if for a different account.

c) The software grabs the cursor when it is the player's turn to act, and doesn't allow it to be moved from the active poker table window until the player acts. If this provision is defeated or prevented, the software simply closes the offending player's session.

I suspect there are any number of ways multitabling can be prevented. The software can scan your other active programs and if it sees another poker program running, it closes it's own session.

And on and on and on.

Now focus on the positives of getting this passed. It will, in all likelyhood, foster a poker boom for both online and live poker. The WSOP really took off after internet poker became popular.

Be happy.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a computer guy, but most of my programming is closer to the hardware so my knowledge of security and applications is roughly comparable to a biologist's knowledge of medicine.

I strongly suspect your security features, at least the ones you list, are laughable, especially if they are not actively maintained and budgeted. (even that won't help too much IMHO)

That is, nothing you have said so far dissuades me from the opinion that I will be able to multitable there roughly sixty days after your bill is implemented, if I want to. Personally, I wouldn't, because I am a straight arrow like that. But those without my ethics should indeed be happy.

[JoeSchmo]

I applaud your effort, but it's pretty weak that you'd put together this otherwise promising campaign and include the one tabling provision. Believe it or not, not all sharks play 20+ tables and not all fish just play 1.

[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