Limited tables at the higher limits

[soko]

Sometimes if you look at the 30/60 tables on party there will be two full tables and both tables will have a waiting list with 70+ pepole on it, what's up with that? Why can't they just open up more tables?

[4thstreetpete]

I think we should all mass email party for this. The wait list for 30/60 is ridiculous. I emailed party and got the generic response "thank you for contacting us, we will forward your message to blah blah blah bs"

[Hung]

It has been debated for several times. And I still don't understand why it's limited.
It's not like they're going broke faster. They can go broke as fast on the smaller tables.

[TomCollins]

Party wants to protect its position as the home of small stakes gamblers. The slower people lose their money, the more rake they make. Its a way to prevent bad players from losing money as fast. Same thing exists at the NL 200 table.

[BlueBear]

The time for Party to open multiple 30/60 tables is now. After all, nothing is still stopping a millionaire fish from depositing his/her money in a different competitor's site.

And no, speaking as a player/outsider who does not play such high limits, I don't believe the presence of new 30/60 will significantly make the existing 15/30 any tougher.

[rerazor]

What's their incentive to open more? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the max rake $3? I'm sure they'd rather have you playing 2 15/30s. It's the same reason their NL buyins half of everyone else; encourage action and increase their bottom line. Same reason they keep 10% of their "jackpot". Same reason their low dollar sit n gos cost twice as much in rake. They're a greedy company that's achieved a critical mass and they can do whatever they want.