Tuff Fish's proposal cleared by CA Sec. of State for petition circ. - Page 8

SixT4 · #71 08-09-2007, 08:36 PM

Being forced to play one table at a time = JESUS GOD DAMN CHRIST [censored] HYCHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Emperor · #72 08-09-2007, 11:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Being forced to play one table at a time = JESUS GOD DAMN CHRIST [censored] HYCHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be sweet... cuz then they would move to FT/Stars

It'd be like the poker minor leauges

Jurrr · #73 08-10-2007, 01:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]Actually, at the SSNL limits I play there are about as much fish as sharks (somewhat few), and then the rest are mediocre nits or mediocre LAGs - not that easily exploitable but also not that dangerous.

So I disagree that there are more fish than sharks; and it will only get worse.

Of course aislephive is probably good enough to exploit those mediocre nits/LAGs for a significant winrate, and thus he doesn't see a problem.

Still, the 1 table restriction is ridiculous, despite seeing where Tuff_Fish is coming from.

A 6 table or maybe even 4 table restriction could be reasonable. And I mostly say that because I usually 6-table lol [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

BTW if they run headsup games with a 1 table limit then it wouldn't be so bad; just add 1 or 2 more at another site and you're all set.

cjk73 · #74 08-10-2007, 08:02 AM

Too funny. I guess 1 table !> 0 tables.

If stipulating 1 table appeases the voters/special interests in even the smallest of ways isn't something better then nothing.

....cutting of your nose to spite your face comes to mind

TheEngineer · #75 08-10-2007, 09:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Too funny. I guess 1 table !> 0 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, if CA outlawed all non-licensed poker sites, such that Californians could only play this one site (as if TF's initiative could ever get on the ballot), the professional multitablers would have to either have to go get jobs or have to figure a way around the single-table limit, as TuffFish seems to think multitabling pros are ignorant and greedy

[ QUOTE ]
If stipulating 1 table appeases the voters/special interests in even the smallest of ways isn't something better then nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appeals to no one but TuffFish, who made it up all on his own. No market research, no polls on how CA residents feel....nothing but his annoyance at having to wait too long to take his turn.

If a 6-tabling pro can no longer make a living at poker, for that player, nothing is better than something bad.

[ QUOTE ]
....cutting of your nose to spite your face comes to mind

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Someone pushing an initiative contary to the desires of the poker community just because he invented some ideas concerning multitabling vs single tabling that runs counter to the successful business models of all the major sites is cutting off his nose to spite his face.

cjk73 · #76 08-10-2007, 10:45 AM

Eng

All I am saying is the number of online poker sites sponsored and explcitly deemed legal by a US state is 0. Someone on this thread pointed out that perhaps the nazi groups would find it more tolerable to legalize single table as it will keep the casual fish from getting killed (their thought process, not mine).

As states like Penn is doing where they first get public and legislative sentiment for slot machines....skids are greased so to speak...now there are bills that are being prepared to legalize table games. Step at a time.

No solution is ever perfect but to create opposing camps on "our side" of internet poker (vs. Frist's side) is a sure way to get nowhere.

"The Major sites" do not have the backing or sponsorship of a State so their business model is irrelevant. Luckily for Antigua or wherever, they dont have the Morality Police to deal with....like it or not Americans do, and appeasement is part of the American politico game.

I prefer multi-tabling but there is the real possbility that in today's environment all forms of online play will become either completely inaccessible within the US or inaccessible to the point where only the top 3% of all players will go through the hassle to bother with it. A bill that legalizes online poker by an actual State would be an incredible reversal of that trend.

I just dont get why the concept of something is better then nothing isn't being applied here.

TheEngineer · #77 08-10-2007, 11:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Someone on this thread pointed out that perhaps the nazi groups would find it more tolerable to legalize single table as it will keep the casual fish from getting killed (their thought process, not mine).

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody has ever stated this, or even implied this, to my knowledge. The single table idea is TuffFish's and TuffFish's alone.

[ QUOTE ]
I just dont get why the concept of something is better then nothing isn't being applied here.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not like this is some grand initiative backed by big groups. If it were, we'd have no choice but to get behind it, as we can't take a defeat. However, this is not the case here....this initiative has no chance (he can't get 430,000 signatures), and because TuffFish created this whole thing partly to yank our chains. If it does make the ballot, I'll support it.

You can read more here: CA Online Poker Initiative!!

If there were some real reason to think this is meaningful, I'd listen to TF, but it's really just one guy who paid $200 to get permission to get signatures....nothing more.

We do have real efforts ongoing to improve our situation. Check out
Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Weekly action thread, 2007 Kentucky Governor’s Race – Awesome opportunity for us!!! and many other threads here.

Tuff_Fish · #78 08-10-2007, 10:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]

.
.
nothing but his annoyance at having to wait too long to take his turn.
.

[/ QUOTE ]

and what better reason to write in the one table provision.

It is MY time that is wasting away while you play out your hand on other tables. Imagine trying to get folks sitting at a live table to cool their heels while you run over to two other tables to play out your hand.

Being on the internet doesn't make it any less rude.

[img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Tuff

PS: Keep up the good work though. We can all be winners.

tautomer · #79 08-11-2007, 12:54 AM

Forcing good players to focus solely on one table pretty much guarantees that the fish will be broke quicker. But at least they'll get to save 3 seconds every hand. Oh wait, maybe good players actually think about what they're doing and it won't matter lol. One table, twenty tables, the fish have no chance. Same as any other casino game, only the good players have the edge instead of the house.

TheEngineer · #80 08-11-2007, 12:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

.
.
nothing but his annoyance at having to wait too long to take his turn.
.

[/ QUOTE ]

and what better reason to write in the one table provision.

It is MY time that is wasting away while you play out your hand on other tables. Imagine trying to get folks sitting at a live table to cool their heels while you run over to two other tables to play out your hand.

Being on the internet doesn't make it any less rude.

[img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Tuff

PS: Keep up the good work though. We can all be winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could have just required that the site offer "lightning tables". [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Thanks for the compliment. This is hard work. I can tell you from experience that you have one hell of a road ahead of you. How many signatures do you have now, if I may ask?

I do think you're making it harder than it has to be, but it's your initiative.