|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Who is the worst team in the NFL? | |||
| Tampa Bay |
   
|
0 | 0% |
| Arizona |
  
|
2 | 1.13% |
| Cleveland |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| Tennessee |
  
|
8 | 4.52% |
| Houston |
  
|
4 | 2.26% |
| Oakland |
  
|
146 | 82.49% |
| Detroit |
|
14 | 7.91% |
| Miami |
|
2 | 1.13% |
| Green Bay |
|
1 | 0.56% |
| Voters: 177. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
09-13-2007, 05:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
fast tables only
Would you like to remove normal tables and only keep fast ones on PS ?
|
|
#2
09-13-2007, 07:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: fast tables only
this is a tough call.... Refering to Pokerstars?
More hands per hour ++++ Can get timed out -- And the main concern... if you ever have a problem with your connection, you are very limited on your decisions throughout the rest of your session. --- probably good for the long run... .but it could drive some players away... I don't know which way to vote....
|
|
#3
09-13-2007, 07:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: fast tables only
im on a wireless network, so are many of my friends who play.... the connection to PS is dodgy and always lagging so if there were only turbo tables i would definitely go play elsewhere, and so would my friends. The only time i play turbo tables is if i fancy a turbo sng for half an hour of automatic decision making.
|
|
#4
09-13-2007, 07:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: fast tables only
Or a compromise and make the slow tables a little faster (for instance I can see no reason why cards should be dealt at different speeds on each table.)
Perhaps a fast table with more of a timeout period?
|
|
#6
09-13-2007, 07:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: fast tables only
I don't understand the problem between connection and fast cash game table
if you have a network problem you are sitout until you come back ...
|
|
#7
09-13-2007, 08:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: fast tables only
and by the way, I think PS have the slowest table if we compare to other pokerroom
|
|
#8
09-13-2007, 08:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: fast tables only
I'm just starting at PS (honestly, I never thought games are so weak there) but I have to admit its much slower than everywhere else. Yet, I voted no because for me as multitabler, I think its more comfortable with the normal speed...
|
|
#9
09-13-2007, 08:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: fast tables only
Why take away the choice?
Where people have a choice they can go where they like and less favoured get dropped if no one wants them.
|
|
#10
09-13-2007, 02:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: fast tables only
in my highly scientifical observations on a busy night.
these numbers are typical of an avg lineup of NL100 PS normal tables avg= 60 hands/hr PS Fast tables avg= 100 hands/hr FTP Tables avg= 75 hands/hr for some reason people take longer at NL200, so lower all numbers by about 12-15%. but there are more fast tables anyways at nl200. I would not move all tables to fast. I think the way its setup now is fast and efficient. If someone wants to only play fast tables then they have that option.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
