does consolidation result in tougher games!

[censored] · #1 02-20-2007, 07:22 PM

we now have four and soon to be 3 major sites which will serve the US market (PS, FT, UB ABS) and some additional smaller sites.

my question. does the consolidation of player bases result in tougher or softer games or is it a non factor over the long run.

I used to think more games = better games, but I am starting to have my doubts.

BluffTHIS! · #2 02-20-2007, 07:26 PM

When all of the 12-tabling weak-tight sharks are consolidated in one pool will you feel like taking a skinny dip?

However there is a solution in game structure and policies. And that is for the sites to ban HUDs & datamining, restrict multi-tabling to 4-6 tables, and increase the minimum buyin for big bet games to 40% of the max.

Victor · #3 02-20-2007, 07:28 PM

consolidation will toughten the unknown rooms and make the wellknown rooms easier. empire is a great example of consolidation obliterating a gold mine. rip empire, my one true love.

KurtSF · #4 02-20-2007, 07:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And that is for the sites to ban HUDs & datamining, restrict multi-tabling to 4-6 tables, and increase the minimum buyin for big bet games to 40% of the max.

[/ QUOTE ]

HUDs and datamining - agreed. I've long said I'm agnostic on the issue. I was a winner long before I used these tools, and as long as they are available I will use them as I feel they are helpful, but if/when they are "banned" by sites I'll set them aside and play without them.

4-6 table max - meh. I see how every shark playing 12 tables leads to a situation where every table is a sharktank shoving money back and forth until a fish sits in and get eaten. But OTOH, if the site has a critical mass of players, a quorum player-base so to speak, this would not be the case. Any limit over 1 table is arbitrary, and only has an impact with a player base less then x. I don't like the TF "one table only" argument, and I don't see the material difference in allowing 4, 6, or 12 tables unless you have a small playerbase.

Increased min buyins - OMG! How awesome would it be if every table had a buyin requirement of 50BB - 200BBs. I can only dare to dream.

1p0kerboy · #5 02-20-2007, 08:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
we now have four and soon to be 3 major sites which will serve the US market (PS, FT, UB ABS)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this soon to be 3?

Where is Bodog?

pineapple888 · #6 02-20-2007, 08:03 PM

More sharks move than fish (many fish just stop playing). Higher percentage of sharks means tougher games. 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.

pokahjokah · #7 02-20-2007, 08:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]

However there is a solution in game structure and policies. And that is for the sites to ban HUDs & datamining, restrict multi-tabling to 4-6 tables, and increase the minimum buyin for big bet games to 40% of the max.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this Tuff Fish's gimmick account?

DING-DONG YO · #8 02-20-2007, 08:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I used to think more games = better games, but I am starting to have my doubts.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Phill] · #9 02-20-2007, 09:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
More sharks move than fish (many fish just stop playing). Higher percentage of sharks means tougher games. 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 ]

Bingo.

The only way to keep games generally beatable is to have the shark to fish ratio offset a much as possible - reducing 12 tablers to 6 tabling halfs their impact across the player base. 4 tabling reduces it to a 3rd.

The future is a 4 table limit i think - though im unsure if any site has data on profitability in rake terms of a reduction in tables.

In other words a harder game overall might be aweful for the fish and really bad for the breakeven/small winning 'sharks' but the rake may increase per table if this happens. Maybe the opposite is true.

The argument has always been that the sites want cash to stay with the fish for as long as possible, but when one group of fish leaves, the next in line take their place.

Newt_Buggs · #10 02-20-2007, 09:31 PM

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.