does consolidation result in tougher games!

[Tuff_Fish]

Holy mackerel!

I didn't know I had any clones on this forum.

Points:

Softest games with the most fish lasting the longest, ONE table.

Best plan for the site in a completely open market, 2-4 tables max, no HUDs etc. Excepting, with unfettered advertising, there will probably be one or more sites specifically targeting rec players by emphasing that "our site has fewer sharks" and limiting tables to one. And THIS is where the best fishing will be, however, you will be limited in how much you can catch.

Best for HUDBOTS, 12 tabling with every type of software available, legal and otherwise. (Until the fish are gone, which in a completely free online poker market, would be quite soon.)

What is legislatively doable?

My take is to start with option one and try to push the politicians toward a completely free open market.

If you get option one established, it will be a lot easier to move to open markets. If you push for open markets initialy and fail due to the anti gambling forces arguing the poor rec poker players are gonna get killed by the multitabling pros, then option one becomes almost unattainable.

Party Poker 2003 is long gone for US players and won't be
back.

Tuff

[lambchop_FT]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason most of you nay-sayers on reducing the number of tables one is allowed to play are taking that position, is that in reality, contrary to what you think, you are very mediocre players who don't have a win in the game without software assistance and/or the use of simplistic strategies like short-stacking nl games. So naturally you aren't willing to consider arguments, even well-founded ones, that reducing the number of tables could actually add to a site's bottom line as jek is saying.

Let's look at why and in what circumstances losing players are willing to continue to lose on a long term basis, and thus contribute rake to a site's bottom line on a long term basis. It is because they have an enjoyable time and lose a little slowly, even if steadily. But when they are faced with the same lineup of 12-tablers and their clones on every table, then hitting 2 to 9 outters won't let them have a winning session often enough to keep them coming back. They will instead lose a lot and fast and won't enjoy the experience. And they will tell their friends that. Any structures and policies that encourage overly tight play is bad for the game and thus bad for the sites and their bottom lines, although the same can be said for the other extreme of structures/policies that encourage too much action.

So all you weak-tight bonus-whoring short-stacking mediocre poker playing pussies can be greedy and insist the sites allow you to kill the sheep instead of shearing them. But what will happen is that rather than having a decent guaranteed income from those sheep, you will be on tables full of wolves and soon after be saying, "you want fries with that?".

[/ QUOTE ]

Very nice post, I couldnt agree more. Its too bad so many people here are to short-sighted to see this.

[Mondogarage]

If you need to rely on PAHUD and datamining other players' HH to be a winning player...you're not a winning player.

What does that have to do with consolidation? Not much, only that if the current climate continues, you'll only be playing with others who need the same crutches as you, many of whom may use them better than you.

And yes, I do want fries with that, thankyouverymuch.

[Orangeheat]

[ QUOTE ]
Party Poker 2003 is long gone for US players and won't be
back.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am assuming many of you missed these days. Too bad.

There was a marked decline in quality after the addition of HUD's, more tables, and all the software now available. Not close to the same game now as it was then.

Yes there is money to be made - but not nearly so easily.

Orange

[DING-DONG YO]

yup, now you have to *gasp* pay attention to your oppenents and out-play them!!!

The knuckle dragging LPP retard fish is for all intents and purposes gone for the forseeable future from online play.

Those that cannpt adapt to players with a clue (not necessarily good, but they do know that 3 of a kind beats 2 pair) are doomed to become the new fish.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

Those that cannot adapt to players with a clue ARE the new fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

[DoubleDealDecker]

Yes.

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
Thremp,

The hyper multi-tabling HUD using players are the ones taking away someone's rice bowl. Their own. In the *long term*. Same with the sites if they focus on short term gains at the expense of the *long term*.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever thought of making a ton of money in the short-term and investing it for the long-term? Or has that bit of wisdom not crossed your simpleton mind?

[BluffTHIS!]

kyleb,

I am going to make the bold prediction that you are most likely a short-stacking hit and runner.

Furthermore, some of us care about the games lasting for the long term, while many of you don't. We thus have competing interests.

[kyleb]

You are obviously wrong. I hate shortstackers and people who hit and run.

Furthermore, I have parlayed a lot of short-term poker winnings into long-term investments, so I practice what I preach.

In summation, you are an idiot.