does consolidation result in tougher games!

[BluffTHIS!]

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?".

[KurtSF]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

Please elaborate on your industry experience and what about it indicates that reducing # of tables will increase profit. It seems very counter intuitive to me that running fewer games will result in more rake. Thanks.

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

Please elaborate on your industry experience and what about it indicates that reducing # of tables will increase profit. It seems very counter intuitive to me that running fewer games will result in more rake. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someday I may get motivated and write an essay for the magazine about why this is, but at this time, I'll just say that in addition to Bluff's post (I see you guys basically posted at the same time) that it's basically a question of, do you want more games and rake now, or would you like fewer games now, but have them go on a longer period of time? My stance is that in the vast majority of cases, the sites can improve their bottom line by reducing the number of tables that can be played. Give up some profit now, to make it back over a longer period of time. (I'm aware of the time value of money, and that good players do other things besides just play, like start games/keep short ones going, and table coach/berate, but I think discussion of them is outside the scope of this post.)

As for my XP in the industry, I founded BonusWhores.com and have done consulting for both poker sites, and other large affiliates. I've followed the industry more or less obsessively since sometime in early 2002 (although I've slacked a bit lately since stepping away from BW.)

[pineapple888]

[ 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 ]

1.) Why should any of us care what's best for the site?

2.) You need a huge bankroll and very soft games to one-table for a living.

3.) Why am I even answering you? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[BluffTHIS!]

1) We don't care what's best for the site, except where we have a convergence of intreests which is having good games that will last.

2) I never suggested 1-tabling and if you read my first post said 4-6.

3) Any answer will do.

[mo42nyy]

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.


100 percent right
I wish pT and huds didnt exist the games would be much better, I would be a slightly worse player and make a ton more money

[Thremp]

mo42nyy,

What makes you "way" of making money more right than someone else's? What is so horrid about short stacking NL games for a decent WR and income?

Why take someone's rice bowl?

[BluffTHIS!]

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*.

[bcblack]

Slightly OT from the discussion, but relevant. US sites have dropped about 20-30% since neteller left. I suspect these were mainly fish going broke.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
mo42nyy,

What makes you "way" of making money more right than someone else's? What is so horrid about short stacking NL games for a decent WR and income?

Why take someone's rice bowl?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thremp if people want to short-stack, they can join a SnG and they can do that in 20 minutes without being a total douchebag.

Short stackers just ruin games, even when they suck. PAHUD bots don't ruin the games, weak tight PAHUD nit-bots, however do. In the Neteller scare I pulled the vast majority of roll off of stars and am now playing two levels below where I was.

On a nine person table, I have literally run into 6 people with 12/2.6 stats, and there are always at least three of them. These nit bots don't cause me too many problems, but they certainly ruin the game for the entertainment players. Also, why the [censored] does a 12/2.6 player take so long to fold preflop. This ruins the games for the entertainment players too, because they are only on 1 to 4 tables themselves, and they want action.

Honestly, the sites would be well advised to start monitoring there 12 tablers and making them play less when they are slowing the games down too much. If you can't keep up while playing 12/2.6, you suck at more than just poker.