Zero Rake Poker Business plan

[Python49]

Thread too long, didn't read.

I'm sure though this whole thing has to do with Tuff_Fish's angst against multi tablers since they can win money 8 tabling while he can't win money 1 tabling. Face it Tuff, you won't be winning on this new site you're brainstorming or any other one either. And even without your site, alot of us are still winning money multi tabling like we always have.

[Python49]

Well, after my post went through it took me to the last page and I was able to scroll up and check out a couple posts....

[ QUOTE ]
If the poker ecology is properly protected, there will be casual poker for decades to come. If you guys had your way, it would be all over in 5 years. (I know, I know, most of you could care less.)

[/ QUOTE ]
The poker ecology is fine so long as people like you continue getting that bi-weekly paycheck.

[kemystery]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

.
Also, you liken one-tabling to a real poker room - a lot of us play online because one-tabling in B&Ms can be ridiculously dreary at times.
.
Part of poker is management of emotions. One reason that a lot of people don't play well in B&M is precisely that they get impatient. What you guys want, because you know this is indeed a problem, is to be free of one of the requirements of playing good poker.

And I know you guys want a lot of hands so you can cherry pick the best hands and ignore the others. If some guy is making a play on you, and your hand is marginal, you want the freedom to toss it and move on since you are being busy at other tables anyway.

That may be good rote poker, but it isn't real poker. Real poker requires you to have the discipline to toss a marginal hand when you are frustrated by not having seen a good hand in an hour.

Furthermore, I don't know why you're asking for our support to help get your idea off the ground when you don't want to cater to our requests. If multitabling nits are bad for the game, surely you think single-tabling nits See above. Single tabling nits are very rare, and most of you won't qualify. are bad for the game too. Then why are you posting here asking for our support? Because having the support of the 2+2 community would make this idea more likely to come to fruition? Okay, so you want our support - why are you insisting on restricting the number of tables people play and then surprised when we're reluctant to give it?
.
I am tossing out an idea I have to see who WOULD support it. I know most of you want to see a quite different model. But neither I nor the US facing sites that will be showing up want to give you all a personal fish farm.

But that being said, I would love to see a completely free competitive market for poker sites. If you would all dedicate as much energy to passing the Wexler bill as you do bashing me, you would go a long way to having such a free market. Then, it is let the best plan win.
.


I like the idea and I'd probably play on the site, but the way you present it here and are so resistant to the suggestions of the community you're trying to win over are going to make it a tough sell to everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

tuff, this guy isn't bashing you at all, he gave you an informed, concise opinion of the situation that I think many on this site - where you have chosen to present this discussion, I might add - would also share. I'm not sure if it's arrogance or ignorance that causes you to renounce every poster with a different viewpoint than yourself in this thread, but that type of mindset is going to prevent the truly thought-provoking and deep discussions that this site was built on.

I know you won't, but I suggest you re-read some of the posts in this thread you categorically dismissed with an open mind, you just might pick up something that will get this idea off the ground, but with a person like yourself behind the initiative I'd be genuinely surprised to see that happen.

[Flintoff]

6-7-8-9....nuttin

In that little speech you gave us I would have made my move on 6 tables.

I can't think of any nice way to put this but you come across as arrogant, attention-seeking, misinformed, stubborn....and an idiot.

[ClubChamp04]

Here is an idea Tuff:

Make the timebanks shorter for the multitablers. I would say that most good multitablers don't slow the games down much so they shouldn't be too concerned with this, but the ones who do will have a have a big problem. One table and you get 15 seconds before it hits the timebank and from there just subtract seconds(maybe 3) for each additional table they're on. So if someone wants to play 4 tables they will have 6 seconds to act before their hand is mucked. That should keep the games nice and speedy.

[kyleb]

Tuff,

You can't even figure out that you have a straight, a flush, or a straight flush in 7 seconds while playing one table.

Shut up about multitablers being too slow.

[Komodo]

U forget one thing about pacifik too. They gave a riskfree bonus upfront which makes it more attractive to sit with your last 100-150$ on one table.

[apefish]

The complaint about taking too much time simply fails when we get down to the difference between 1 and say 4 tables.
I don't think there are many who would say a 4 table cap on games is overly restrictive.
The too much time argument basically goes out the window at that point.
I would also say most multitablers handle 4 tables as fast as the average player plays 1 or 2.

And then of course there is the issue that no multitabler will only be playing this site's one table- meaning you cannot protect against the timing down/out factor with a silly restriction like this anyhow.

It's a horrible part of the argument against multitabling.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

Here's a solution for Tuff. Special "beginner" or "social" tables where you can't sit if you are already seated at another table. Most fish won't care and they won't drag enough donators out of the pool to seriously harm multitablers (and if it does, then tuff_fish might have a point about multitablers).

[Mr_Donktastic]

I would play 1 table at you site while playing 12 tables at FTP if you offer NL HOLDMAHA