Stars: increase maximum tables please - Page 4

blackize · #31 10-25-2007, 06:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah 'cause the games at Full Tilt are dead now.

[/ QUOTE ]

They have allowed more than 12 tabling for like 2 days. We can't judge what affect this has had yet.

The games are in pretty bad shape when you have 3+ regulars on each table, which is the case at both Stars and Full Tilt. 12 tablers are a primary reason for this.

Split Suit · #32 10-25-2007, 06:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah 'cause the games at Full Tilt are dead now.

[/ QUOTE ]

They have allowed more than 12 tabling for like 2 days. We can't judge what affect this has had yet.

The games are in pretty bad shape when you have 3+ regulars on each table, which is the case at both Stars and Full Tilt. 12 tablers are a primary reason for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

they have allowed 12 tables forever.

they just bumped up the max to 16 2days ago

did my first 14tabling sesh and loved it. and no time outs, no sitouts, no dippin into my timebank.

so yes, some ppl can handle it. just cuz u 4tabling nits cant do it, doesnt mean others cannot

1p0kerboy · #33 10-25-2007, 06:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah 'cause the games at Full Tilt are dead now.

[/ QUOTE ]

They have allowed more than 12 tabling for like 2 days. We can't judge what affect this has had yet.

The games are in pretty bad shape when you have 3+ regulars on each table, which is the case at both Stars and Full Tilt. 12 tablers are a primary reason for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The players who want to play more than 12 tables are already doing so by playing at multiple sites. There is no way to stop them.

That's why the whole "ZOMG the games will dry up" doesn't really make sense.

If I'm playing 12 tables at Stars and 3 at Full Tilt (which I actually often do) and change that to 15 at Stars and none at Full Tilt, the overall online game quality hasn't changed one bit. DUCY?

CCx · #34 10-25-2007, 06:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone that I know of who plays more than 8 games at once never slows the game down.

[/ QUOTE ]

quick, bring up any turbo sng on stars.... "<xxx>, its your turn, you have 15 seconds left to act" all over the place - this is prevalent in cash games, sngs, and tourneys....

maybe a good % of the 2+2 community can handle gazillion tabling without delay, which is great... but as the absolute scandal has shown, poker extends waaaaay beyond messageboards, and there's a lot of people with a lot of tables open who make the game brutal to play for people who only play one table

the views/concerns on both sides of the argument in this thread are valid

OnlinePro · #35 10-25-2007, 07:53 PM

Stars does not care about new casual players. This is not where they make their money, this is where THE PROS make their money. We are the reason stars makes so much money in the cash games. Tournaments are the big money maker for all sites from casual players.

Open up any limit game from any limit, and you will see it is 90% regulars keeping the games going. If you upset 3 regulars in any given limit and they stop playing at your site than that is 12 games that will break.

Stars has already upset me so that is 12 games that I will not be participating in next year, which is going to cause a lot of tables to break because alot of regulars like to only play against me because I always run bad.

So unless stars does some major changes, they have lost a superhigh volume losing player. And the one thing that must happen for me to continue playing is increased maximum tables.

blackize · #36 10-25-2007, 08:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm playing 12 tables at Stars and 3 at Full Tilt (which I actually often do) and change that to 15 at Stars and none at Full Tilt, the overall online game quality hasn't changed one bit. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

This actually makes some sense, but I still think it is in all of our best interests to limit the number of tables to 6 or 8.

blackize · #37 10-25-2007, 08:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]

they have allowed 12 tables forever.

they just bumped up the max to 16 2days ago

did my first 14tabling sesh and loved it. and no time outs, no sitouts, no dippin into my timebank.

so yes, some ppl can handle it. just cuz u 4tabling nits cant do it, doesnt mean others cannot

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had read the post you quoted you would see that I made no reference to the games slowing down.

In fact I'm currently 20 tabling but recognize that limiting the number of tables people can play is in the best interest of both the sites and the players in the long run.

BlackRain · #38 10-25-2007, 08:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah 'cause the games at Full Tilt are dead now.

[/ QUOTE ]

They have allowed more than 12 tabling for like 2 days. We can't judge what affect this has had yet.

The games are in pretty bad shape when you have 3+ regulars on each table, which is the case at both Stars and Full Tilt. 12 tablers are a primary reason for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The players who want to play more than 12 tables are already doing so by playing at multiple sites. There is no way to stop them.

That's why the whole "ZOMG the games will dry up" doesn't really make sense.

If I'm playing 12 tables at Stars and 3 at Full Tilt (which I actually often do) and change that to 15 at Stars and none at Full Tilt, the overall online game quality hasn't changed one bit. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why this debate comes up in every one of these threads either. Its kind of just spam and should be put somewhere else, in a different thread at least. Multi tabling isn't going away any time soon. As long as there are 12 different poker sites, people can and will 12 table.

To all the people for which, game slowness is an issue, why not think of some actual useful solutions, rather than beating the old multi tablers are the devil war drum? I can think of a few.

1) Lobby sites to rethink their time bank structures. Give less and less time to chronic slow decision making so that it eventually really costs them money in folded hands etc.

2) Lobby sites to eventually ban repeated, chronic slow decision makers.

These are two ideas which might actually do some good. Spamming these threads about an issue like multi tabling, which isn't going to change is like arguing that the colour of the sky is ugly. Maybe it is but who the [censored] cares?

To the topic of this thread. Yes, Stars should follow suit and increase its limits for greater flexibility and choice for its users.

turtle82 · #39 10-25-2007, 08:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I'm playing 12 tables at Stars and 3 at Full Tilt (which I actually often do) and change that to 15 at Stars and none at Full Tilt, the overall online game quality hasn't changed one bit. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

This actually makes some sense, but I still think it is in all of our best interests to limit the number of tables to 6 or 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, perhaps it is in YOUR best interests to limit the number of tables to 6 or 8, but it is definitely not in mine, or 1pokerboy's, or any other 12 tablers out there. My gross profit has increased substantially after increasing from 6,8 to 12 tables, so how in the world would it be in my best interest? I can understand if people don't like 12 tabling or 12 tablers, but its pretty stupid to say that its not in their best interest if they are profitting from it.

1p0kerboy · #40 10-25-2007, 08:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This actually makes some sense, but I still think it is in all of our best interests to limit the number of tables to 6 or 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

But don't you see that we would just play at several more sites if they did this?

How does that help game quality?

Take 2 12-tablers- one at Stars and one at Tilt. If both sites suddenly implemented a 6-table maximum, these two players would then be playing 6 tables at Stars and 6 tables at Tilt EACH. So you're right back where you started.