Multi-tabling TAG sharks more important than you think

[spino1i]

One thing I just realized is that a Multi-tabling shark will play 7-10 tables whereas a fish will only play 1. So this means that the Multi-tabling shark pays on average 7-10 times the rake that a fish would pay. I would think that this fact (that the sharks play a lot more) makes the sharks for more important customers to Party than the fish. You could make a weak argument that the sharks drive the average pot size lower, lowering the rake, but at higher stakes (1/2 NL and above) where the rake is for the most part capped, this really doesnt matter.

If you have 60,000 fish and 10,000 sharks on Party that want rakeback, the 10,000 sharks suddenly become just as important if not more important than the 60,000 fish, since they play far more tables. However you won't see it in the "number of players" statistic.

I think you have somewhat of a sloppy point buried in your post, but you're not helping your case by saying things like

[ QUOTE ]
I would think that this makes the sharks for more important customers to Party than the fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats laughable.

If anything your point would be that the importance of the sharks (be it according to sources just 7% of the playerbase) compared to the losing players (93%) is in reality not reflected by these numbers alone. There are some other factors (like the fact that the 'sharks' have a much higher rate of multi-tablers) you have to weigh in.

FYP

[crunchy1]

60,000 sharks aren't going to leave Party Poker just because they're not getting rakeback.

[spino1i]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you have somewhat of a sloppy point buried in your post, but you're not helping your case by saying things like

[ QUOTE ]
I would think that this makes the sharks for more important customers to Party than the fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats laughable.

If anything your point would be that the importance of the sharks (be it according to sources just 7% of the playerbase) compared to the losing players (93%) is in reality not reflected by these numbers alone. There are some other factors (like the fact that the 'sharks' have a much higher rate of multi-tablers) you have to weigh in.

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes this is exactly what I meant to say..

[jdl22]

The fish are more important, it's easy to see why. Without fish these sharks play elsewhere so you lose both. If the sharks leave not only will the fish not leave but they will be better off and play more.

Clearly the site should pander to the losing players.

[regular]

sharks play fewer hands so they are actually contributing a smaller % of rake than the fish.

yeah. but this is only one side of the coin. to lure the fish to the site, the poker room also needs some multi-tabling sharks to keep the game constantly going. look at the 200 SNG area at empire/eurobet right now, if a fish comes in, he needs to wait 20 minutes to have a game. so lot of the times, the fish will leave. if there are 10-15 multi-tabling sharks still play there 8 hours a day, it would be very different. the fish can find a game right away and pay his rake to the poker room. for a poker room to be successful, the ability to keep the game constantly going is very important, which means higher rake per hour and less impatient customer leaving. this is why a poker room needs a nice mix of both sharks and fish to be highly profitable.

[ QUOTE ]
yeah. but this is only one side of the coin. to lure the fish to the site, the poker room also needs some multi-tabling sharks to keep the game constantly going. look at the 200 SNG area at empire/eurobet right now, if a fish comes in, he needs to wait 20 minutes to have a game. so lot of the times, the fish will leave. if there are 10-15 multi-tabling sharks still play there 8 hours a day, it would be very different. the fish can find a game right away and pay his rake to the poker room. for a poker room to be successful, the ability to keep the game constantly going is very important, which means higher rake per hour and less impatient customer leaving. this is why a poker room needs a nice mix of both sharks and fish to be highly profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Talk numbers b*atch!

Your argument(as much as a lot of other posters) reads like a mixtable, where all buttons, switches, and slides are turn to either max or min(and beyond), thus supposedly making the song sound like crap.

Numbers, even rough ones, would probably show us all that our importance is that one of a tiny finetune slide for the highest frequencys. Surely the song changes some , or perhaps even gets skewed a bit. But rest assured, PartyPokermanagement will find it more than pleasant enough . As long as it has good bass they'll keep looping it until the day breaks.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
sharks play fewer hands so they are actually contributing a smaller % of rake than the fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker sites don't care who pays what % of the rake. They just care about the overall rake.

Multitablers = more tables are in play. More tables in play = more rake for the site.

[savman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yeah. but this is only one side of the coin. to lure the fish to the site, the poker room also needs some multi-tabling sharks to keep the game constantly going. look at the 200 SNG area at empire/eurobet right now, if a fish comes in, he needs to wait 20 minutes to have a game. so lot of the times, the fish will leave. if there are 10-15 multi-tabling sharks still play there 8 hours a day, it would be very different. the fish can find a game right away and pay his rake to the poker room. for a poker room to be successful, the ability to keep the game constantly going is very important, which means higher rake per hour and less impatient customer leaving. this is why a poker room needs a nice mix of both sharks and fish to be highly profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Talk numbers b*atch!

Your argument(as much as a lot of other posters) reads like a mixtable, where all buttons, switches, and slides are turn to either max or min(and beyond), thus supposedly making the song sound like crap.

Numbers, even rough ones, would probably show us all that our importance is that one of a tiny finetune slide for the highest frequencys. Surely the song changes some , or perhaps even gets skewed a bit. But rest assured, PartyPokermanagement will find it more than pleasant enough . As long as it has good bass they'll keep looping it until the day breaks.

[/ QUOTE ]

are TAG sharks good for business? Of course they are. why do u think cardrooms PAY prop players. the post about keeping games going should show you why.

Im not saying the logic in itself is flawed, im just pointing out that if people start overexaggerating their arguments, it might as well just be. In that way any conclusion about whatever matter becomes irrelevant and totally out of place with reality.

PS. You savman from NWP? If so, NH!, you guys are hilarious /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[spino1i]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sharks play fewer hands so they are actually contributing a smaller % of rake than the fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker sites don't care who pays what % of the rake. They just care about the overall rake.

Multitablers = more tables are in play. More tables in play = more rake for the site.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly my thoughts. Youll notice right now PokerStars has more tables going than PartyPoker, bet its because there are a lot more multi-tablers there.