|
|
#11
02-20-2007, 09:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: does consolidation result in tougher games!
[ QUOTE ]
Unless somehow you think the sharks are magically going to ignore a soft table when it appears, and let you have the table all to yourself. [/ QUOTE ] In my experience they do. I find it unbelievable how often there are 5 other sharks willing to sit at a table with me. I'll only stay for an orbit if this happens unless I have a strong read and way to exploit one of the sharks to my immediate right. Banning HUDs is the only way to stop 12 tablers. Until that happens, pay more attention and learn how to beat the regulars. 
|
|
#12
02-21-2007, 01:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: does consolidation result in tougher games!
[ QUOTE ]
Implementing limits on the number of tables each player can play would be a really dumb move by the poker sites. Multitabelers will just move some of their business to other sites rather than reduce the number of tables they are playing. Ex: if someone 8 tables FTP and FTP reduces the number of tables to 4 then that player will just play 4 tables on FTP and 4 on stars now. The only thing that FTP has accomplished is lose business. [/ QUOTE ] It's a balance. The long term viability of the site depends on attracting and retaining a stream of mostly losing players who feed the winners who in turn pay the rake. The games can get so bad that no one would play except for bonus whores. And it's not just the fact that hyper multi-tabling allows the fish to get decimated more quickly, but also the psychological aspect where Joe Fish not only takes a drubbing time after time, but also can't get away from the same weak-tight mother [censored] who are giving it to him. He will just go elsewhere and also won't be telling his fish buddies that they should play on the site. That doesn't mean that 4 tables is a magic number for the most that should be allowed, but it is reasonable. And it makes botting a lot less attractive the fewer tables there are as well. In fact Joe Fish probably thinks many posters here are bots because he can't fathom how someone can play 8+ tables at once.
|
|
#13
02-21-2007, 01:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: does consolidation result in tougher games!
[ QUOTE ]
Implementing limits on the number of tables each player can play would be a really dumb move by the poker sites. Multitabelers will just move some of their business to other sites rather than reduce the number of tables they are playing. Ex: if someone 8 tables FTP and FTP reduces the number of tables to 4 then that player will just play 4 tables on FTP and 4 on stars now. The only thing that FTP has accomplished is lose business. [/ QUOTE ] QFT
|
|
#14
02-21-2007, 02:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: does consolidation result in tougher games!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Implementing limits on the number of tables each player can play would be a really dumb move by the poker sites. Multitabelers will just move some of their business to other sites rather than reduce the number of tables they are playing. Ex: if someone 8 tables FTP and FTP reduces the number of tables to 4 then that player will just play 4 tables on FTP and 4 on stars now. The only thing that FTP has accomplished is lose business. [/ QUOTE ] QFT [/ QUOTE ] While this may be true, the same result (sharks playing less tables) would be accomplished by removing HUDs. Even though Im one of those 8 tabling HUD users, my honest answer is that having less 8tablers w/ huds is much better for the long term.
|
|
#15
02-21-2007, 03:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: does consolidation result in tougher games!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Unless somehow you think the sharks are magically going to ignore a soft table when it appears, and let you have the table all to yourself. [/ QUOTE ] In my experience they do. I find it unbelievable how often there are 5 other sharks willing to sit at a table with me. I'll only stay for an orbit if this happens unless I have a strong read and way to exploit one of the sharks to my immediate right. Banning HUDs is the only way to stop 12 tablers. Until that happens, pay more attention and learn how to beat the regulars. [/ QUOTE ] Well, that's not quite what I said... a 12-tabler may just fire up however many he wants to play and go to town. But in today's brave new world, if you are lucky enough to find yourself a nice, soft table, you can bet there will be a bunch of sharks lined up behind you, and it will go from soft to tough as the fish bust out or just quit, and usually sooner rather than later. LOL at making a living by beating the HUDbot regulars.
|
|
#16
02-21-2007, 03:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: does consolidation result in tougher games!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Implementing limits on the number of tables each player can play would be a really dumb move by the poker sites. Multitabelers will just move some of their business to other sites rather than reduce the number of tables they are playing. Ex: if someone 8 tables FTP and FTP reduces the number of tables to 4 then that player will just play 4 tables on FTP and 4 on stars now. The only thing that FTP has accomplished is lose business. [/ QUOTE ] QFT [/ QUOTE ] Did you guys play 1 table on Pacific and X number elsewhere when Pacific only allowed 1 table? How many people do you know that did that? You're vastly overestimating the percentage of people that will multi-site. As for if reducing the number of HUDBots on your site is a good for the bottom line, that is something that's very much unknown (and depends largely on the site's current situation) so saying all they would accomplish with this policy is lose business, has a very high probability of being wrong.
|
|
#17
02-21-2007, 03:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: does consolidation result in tougher games!
It's going to mean less variance in game quality. So table selecting will become harder and less important, but the average game won't be any harder because of consolidation.
Of course, if the fish are hesitant to move, that'll make the games much much harder.
|
|
#18
02-21-2007, 03:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: does consolidation result in tougher games!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Implementing limits on the number of tables each player can play would be a really dumb move by the poker sites. Multitabelers will just move some of their business to other sites rather than reduce the number of tables they are playing. Ex: if someone 8 tables FTP and FTP reduces the number of tables to 4 then that player will just play 4 tables on FTP and 4 on stars now. The only thing that FTP has accomplished is lose business. [/ QUOTE ] QFT [/ QUOTE ] Did you guys play 1 table on Pacific and X number elsewhere when Pacific only allowed 1 table? How many people do you know that did that? You're vastly overestimating the percentage of people that will multi-site. As for if reducing the number of HUDBots on your site is a good for the bottom line, that is something that's very much unknown (and depends largely on the site's current situation) so saying all they would accomplish with this policy is lose business, has a very high probability of being wrong . [/ QUOTE ] It has the same probability of being right. So you saying it has a high probability of being wrong is in fact wrong.
|
|
#19
02-21-2007, 04:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: does consolidation result in tougher games!
[ QUOTE ]
are as well. In fact Joe Fish probably thinks many posters here are bots because he can't fathom how someone can play 8+ tables at once. [/ QUOTE ] If all they are doing is folling what a HUD tells them to do, they are just the output device for a bot anyway. What I wonder is, why don't some sites have special tables for single tablers only, just like they have turbo and other special feature tables.
|
|
#20
02-21-2007, 04:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: does consolidation result in tougher games!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Implementing limits on the number of tables each player can play would be a really dumb move by the poker sites. Multitabelers will just move some of their business to other sites rather than reduce the number of tables they are playing. Ex: if someone 8 tables FTP and FTP reduces the number of tables to 4 then that player will just play 4 tables on FTP and 4 on stars now. The only thing that FTP has accomplished is lose business. [/ QUOTE ] QFT [/ QUOTE ] Did you guys play 1 table on Pacific and X number elsewhere when Pacific only allowed 1 table? How many people do you know that did that? You're vastly overestimating the percentage of people that will multi-site. As for if reducing the number of HUDBots on your site is a good for the bottom line, that is something that's very much unknown (and depends largely on the site's current situation) so saying all they would accomplish with this policy is lose business, has a very high probability of being wrong . [/ QUOTE ] It has the same probability of being right. [/ QUOTE ] What are you basing that on? I've read lots of arguments about this, but I've never seen anyone argue it's something close to 50/50. From my experience in the industry, I'd say that dropping HUDBots from 8 tables to 4 would boost the sites' profit in over 90% of the cases. [ QUOTE ] So you saying it has a high probability of being wrong is in fact wrong. [/ QUOTE ] Even in your case of it being 50% correct, I consider 50 compared to 0 a high probability.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
