Why TAGs are undesirable

I am sick of hearing why TAGs are valuable. We suck as customers. This post will be the irrefutable proof.

Imagine a hypothetical NL pool of 10 players (I use NL only because it exaggerates the effect of skill, as contrasted with limit poker), each with a stack of $1000 in front of him. 9 of the players are morons. 1 of the players is excellent. The morons push preflop on inadequate values, draw when they shouldnt, etc; the TAG plays well and gets his money in only when it makes sense.

How many hands will it take before the TAG has all the money? Let's hypothetically say in 500 hands this will happen (the players are real morons). Party's take: 500 x $3.00 = $1500 in rake paid.

Now suppose that the players are of more or less equal skill and that no player has an edge. To the extent that one player wins a given hand, he is just as likely to lose it back the next hand. Money flows between players are random. Under this situation, the money theoretically goes back and forth between the players--say 3333 hands--until Party has it all due to rake. Party's take = 3333 x $3 = $9,999

Conclusion: TAGs are undesirable players because they reduce the number of hands that fish can survive. Instead of passing money back and forth and re-raking it until nothing remains (Party: $9999, players $0), the TAG captures this profit by taking the money out of the pool available to be raked by Party (Party: $1500, players $8500, monkeys $0.00)

The fewer hands that fish can play, the smaller the rake for Party. Thus, TAGs create huge marketing costs for Party because they are constantly depleting the pool.

The logic of this proof is inescapable.

That is all.

[beeyjay]

you forgot that in reality nothing is this black and white.

This arguement fails based on the distinction between fish and shark.

Suppose all the sharks leave a fish pond. Are there still sharks in the pond? Yes, of course. Why? because those that used to be fish are now at the top of the food chain. They are now the sharks.

Likewise, suppose a group of big sharks enters a pond, the previous sharks (ie the small sharks) are now "the fish".

[jrz1972]

You also forgot that multitabling TAGs keep some tables going that would not exist otherwise, thereby generating more rake for the site.

Nice try though.

Of course not. I was demonstrating the underlying concept for why TAGs are bad.

Players are annuities. Their value is equal to the sum of all future rake paid.

If you hold the total amount of money in the poker universe constant/finite (e.g., the sum of all players' bankrolls), it is an inescapable fact that skilled players will bust unskilled players in fewer hands, compared with the number of hands that would be played if the game were only between equally unskilled players.

Because unskilled players will participate in a smaller number of hands due to the effect of TAGs, their annuitized value is lower.

Correct.

Another way to consider it:
Both the sharks and the house(rake) are in competition for the fishes money. As long as there are enough fish to keep games going, the sharks are unnecessary competition.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
I use NL only because it exaggerates the effect of skill, as contrasted with limit poker

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

In all but the very softest games, this effect won't be so noticeable as to be a problem.

If tags are UNdesirable as you claim they are, why did Party opened up the possibility to play 10 tables, instead of 4? Surely to lure the multi-table sharks back in their lap right?

I see your con, but i have a feeling the pros outweigh this in the eyes of partymanagement. What these pros are, and specifically what their weight is, i think is hard to tell for any of us. There hasn't been a single post today i've read (and i've read A LOT due to insufferable boredom) where someone gave me the slightes hinch of seeing the 'total picture' that comes to play in a complex matter like this.

[ QUOTE ]
You also forgot that multitabling TAGs keep some tables going that would not exist otherwise, thereby generating more rake for the site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hold the amount of money in the poker universe constant and your logic fails. Even if a table falls apart, a new table will form eventually. Then we're back at the question of how many hands can get played before the players are broke?

Additionally, the "TAGs keep tables going" argument doesnt really work in a network this large. The fact is that the Party network is so liquid that it survives just fine without the presence of TAGs. (Witness the fact that they're doing fine despite the split.) Your argument might have some merit in an illiquid market like Prima.

As an aside/metaphor, consider whether the NYSE or AMEX need to employ specialists to maintain market liquidity, or whether market transactions can occur perfectly well w/out a specialist (a la NASDAQ).

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
Hold the amount of money in the poker universe constant

[/ QUOTE ]

There's part of your problem right there.

[ QUOTE ]
If tags are UNdesirable as you claim they are, why did Party opened up the possibility to play 10 tables, instead of 4? Surely to lure the multi-table sharks back in their lap right?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct, Party is definitely seeking to attract TAGs, by offering 10 tables simultaneously. I frankly dont understand why they think this is desirable, unless they think they can get share that would otherwise go to Prima, Pokerstars, etc. It is, frankly, a mistake.

If I were Party, I would do as much as possible to eliminate advantages that one player can get on another player. In theory, HUDs, Pokertracker, Poker Edge, even notes should all be banned because they reward skilled players and thus result in fewer hands being played by fish before they bust. I suspect the only reason Party hasn't chosen to ban Pokertracker/HUDs, is that they face a genuine risk of losing market share to Pokerstars and other sites that are pro-player tools.

By the way, for those of you who dont like my argument, how about chewing on this one: Does the existence of high limit games damage the long-term viability of mid-limit games? If so, why? Do you see how this is similar to the problem of TAGs?

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
unless they think they can get share that would otherwise go to Prima, Pokerstars, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your proof seems to be looking less and less irrefutable as we go along, no?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hold the amount of money in the poker universe constant

[/ QUOTE ]

There's part of your problem right there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that this is a simplifying assumption. But it's also not entirely off.

Poker cannot grow at double-digit rates ad infinitum, so we know that poker bankrolls are finite at some point.

More to the point, in order to "grow" the poker economy, Party needs to hire Mike Sexton, buy spots on the WPT, give away bonuses, etc. All of these customer acquisition and retention costs come off the bottom line.

So to the extent that TAGs require Party to spend more money on marketing, they reduce the bottom line. This is why we are undesirable.

Lets ask a newer/smaller sight, say like a Games Grid, who they would rather have.They have a choice of 10,000 TAGS or 10,000 fish walking through there front door as new customers.

Which would they rather have?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You also forgot that multitabling TAGs keep some tables going that would not exist otherwise, thereby generating more rake for the site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hold the amount of money in the poker universe constant and your logic fails. Even if a table falls apart, a new table will form eventually. Then we're back at the question of how many hands can get played before the players are broke?

Additionally, the "TAGs keep tables going" argument doesnt really work in a network this large. The fact is that the Party network is so liquid that it survives just fine without the presence of TAGs. (Witness the fact that they're doing fine despite the split.) Your argument might have some merit in an illiquid market like Prima.

As an aside/metaphor, consider whether the NYSE or AMEX need to employ specialists to maintain market liquidity, or whether market transactions can occur perfectly well w/out a specialist (a la NASDAQ).

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of the reason the party network is so liquid is because there are many pros constantly playing there. Fish is nice. but they dont play that often and you need very many of them to keep the game constantly going. besides, it is very costly to recruit new fish. Just like the day traders make the stock market more liquid. besides, even fish have different skill level. without all the sharks, there are still going to be winners and losers. with sharks around, fish can find a game much easier, play more often and contribute more rake. i think party management did their homework and came to understand that the benefits of multi-tabling sharks far outweigh the downside.

[somapopper]

If everyone will play an equal number of hands: fish

If each TAG will play 10x as many hands as each fish: TAGs

Which do you think is closer to reality?

(obviously, if an empty player pool is filled with TAGs, the TAGs will leave, so I think the PP situation is different)

[MentalNomad]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker cannot grow at double-digit rates ad infinitum, so we know that poker bankrolls are finite at some point.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. Poker bankrolls, for most people, are part of their discretionary INCOME.

Think of casino gambling; all the games are profitable for the house, yet there is a continuous stream of people coming in with fresh money to play.

In the poker world, they don't play against the house; they play against each other.

So in the poker world, TAGs are like slot machines. They generally take people's money, but occasionally they pay out. People come to play against them, despite the sure knowledge that they will lose (long-term), and they don't play with a bankroll -- they play with discretionary income.

All that having been said, too many TAGs are like a casino full of slot machines that very rarely pay out. It becomes less popular than other casinos. That effect, in a place like Party, is very, very small. . . because the losers don't see the money going to the house. They see it going to other players, and can imagine being those players.

Also, you seem to miss the point made earlier -- the question of who qualifies as a fish is always relative. There is ALWAYS someone at the top of the food chain, and they will win at poker. If you suddenly removed everyone with a VP%IP below 20%, people playing to 21% would be the tightest players, and would run more profitable at tables full of looser people. They would suck the money out of the loose game as surely as the previous TAGs did. In fact, they would be the new TAGs, becuase "tight," itself, is a relative term. The balance of power remains unchanged; only the players in power are different.

Interesting thought problem. I dont know the answer.

The game is like a coin flip (neither side has an edge, whether it is TAG v TAG or fish v. fish). However, the pots themselves will differ in size. TAGs will play for smaller pots, and fish will play for larger pots. Larger pots means the rake will be capped more often, but on the other hand, larger pots (with random winners, as should happen in an equal skill game), means greater variance. Greater variance, means each player faces a larger risk of ruin. So the fish v. fish games should die out before the tag v. tag games do.

Im not sure what the answer is, but I think these are the decisive factors.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets ask a newer/smaller sight, say like a Games Grid, who they would rather have.They have a choice of 10,000 TAGS or 10,000 fish walking through there front door as new customers.

Which would they rather have?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this isn't a good analogy if you're defending TAGs, because a new site would obviously prefer the fish.

This would make the site desireable for TAGs to play on in the future, and therefore grow.

[Bill Poker]

thats why the online poker is rigged, TAGs get more bad beats than fishes.

<font color="white"> yes, i think Party should include this idea in their next release </font> /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MaxPower]

You are wrong in so many ways.

More games=More rake
Multitabling=More games

If Party paid me $10,000 a year to play there it would be a bargain for them. I have paid $33,000 in rake this year and they have raked $465,000 off all the tables I've played.

How much in Marketing costs would it take to replace a customer like me. A hell of a lot more than $10,000.

Party is right that the skin and affiliate system sucks for them, but they need to comp the multitabling high volume players.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
You are wrong in so many ways.

More games=More rake
Multitabling=More games

If Party paid me $10,000 a year to play there it would be a bargain for them. I have paid $33,000 in rake this year and they have raked $465,000 off all the tables I've played.

How much in Marketing costs would it take to replace a customer like me. A hell of a lot more than $10,000.

Party is right that the skin and affiliate system sucks for them, but they need to comp the multitabling high volume players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen, brotha.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lets ask a newer/smaller sight, say like a Games Grid, who they would rather have.They have a choice of 10,000 TAGS or 10,000 fish walking through there front door as new customers.

Which would they rather have?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this isn't a good analogy if you're defending TAGs, because a new site would obviously prefer the fish.

This would make the site desireable for TAGs to play on in the future, and therefore grow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fold. NH

[ QUOTE ]
If Party paid me $10,000 a year to play there it would be a bargain for them. I have paid $33,000 in rake this year and they have raked $465,000 off all the tables I've played.

How much in Marketing costs would it take to replace a customer like me. A hell of a lot more than $10,000.

Party is right that the skin and affiliate system sucks for them, but they need to comp the multitabling high volume players.

[/ QUOTE ]


Very well put. I think this is the most solid statement posted since the news broke.

[sqvirrel]

[ QUOTE ]
If Party paid me $10,000 a year to play there it would be a bargain for them. I have paid $33,000 in rake this year

[/ QUOTE ]

The question you aren't asking, and the point that everyone is forgetting is 'so what if you paid $33k in rake, how much of it did Party get?' If you are playing at Party with no deal then sure, they are gettting all of it. But since you've been whining so much I'm guessing you play through a skin with a nice deal. How much of the rake do you really think Party gets from the skins? 50%? 30%? 0%? I don't really know and I doubt you or anyone else that has been posting knows either.

I am guessing that Party analyzed this pretty carefully and decided that they would be more profitable collecting 100% of the rake from fewer players. I suspect well over half of the skin traffic would have to leave the network entirely before this would be a money losing proposition for Party.

Does anyone really expect that to happen?

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Party paid me $10,000 a year to play there it would be a bargain for them. I have paid $33,000 in rake this year

[/ QUOTE ]

The question you aren't asking, and the point that everyone is forgetting is 'so what if you paid $33k in rake, how much of it did Party get?' If you are playing at Party with no deal then sure, they are gettting all of it. But since you've been whining so much I'm guessing you play through a skin with a nice deal. How much of the rake do you really think Party gets from the skins? 50%? 30%? 0%? I don't really know and I doubt you or anyone else that has been posting knows either.

I am guessing that Party analyzed this pretty carefully and decided that they would be more profitable collecting 100% of the rake from fewer players. I suspect well over half of the skin traffic would have to leave the network entirely before this would be a money losing proposition for Party.

Does anyone really expect that to happen?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, short term this will let Party keep more of my rake. It is only in long term that this can hurt if other sites are successful in luring away players who were addicted to rakeback.

I don't know what the skins were getting, so I don't know how much more they will be getting.

As recently as three years ago, Paradise Poker was the dominant site by a large margin and Party was tiny. The new Party Skins on their own are gigantic compared to Party 3 years ago.

No one at that time was predicting the demise of Paradise. It can happen to Party if they are not carefull.

By the way, I am not whining. I don't really care about rakeback much. Its nice to have, but not essential. I don't think Party owes me anything, but a certain amount of comping goes a long way toward building loyalty.

I just get a little exasperated that many 2+2ers think that a poker site would be better off without multiabling TAGs.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
you forgot that in reality nothing is this black and white.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dumb response to a good post.

[Wabby]

You are calculating the situation where there are ten fish at one table.

How about the situation where there are ten fish on TEN tables each with 9 sharks.

The fish may last only 250 hands.

That gives Party the rake of 2500 hands = 7500.

The sharks share 2500.

And the key is that all this were accomplished in one day. Tomorrow the fish will come back with more money.

[HesseJam]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Party paid me $10,000 a year to play there it would be a bargain for them. I have paid $33,000 in rake this year and they have raked $465,000 off all the tables I've played.

How much in Marketing costs would it take to replace a customer like me. A hell of a lot more than $10,000.

Party is right that the skin and affiliate system sucks for them, but they need to comp the multitabling high volume players.

[/ QUOTE ]


Very well put. I think this is the most solid statement posted since the news broke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I quote another poster who, I think, was taking your side of the argument with the following: "Fish is nice. but they dont play that often and you need very many of them to keep the game constantly going. besides, it is very costly to recruit new fish." (emphasis added)

I think this very well illustrates that the logic "winning multitablers are very valuable customers" is flawed. The cost to provide them with a soothing environment might very well be higher than what they pay in rake. Add the growth dynamics to this - multitablers tend to stay, fish tend to be replaced if they stay fish, some fish survive and turn into additional multitablers - you'll see the problem once the growth of a poker room hits a wall. As long as the multitablers move up this problem is less severe. If they stay at the low levels they create a bottleneck at the lower end of the food chain. They kill too many small fish before they can grow. Party understood this, hence the beginners tables.

A poker player who improves his skills in B&amp;M usually moves up because this is the best way to maximize his profits. Online, many of the better players simply add tables to maximize their profits. If I were Party I would just limit the number of games one can play per month at .5/1 to 2/4 to encourage moving up. For big losers rake is a non-factor, hence rake is high at the lower levels. Winners should move to levels where the rake is lower.

Thinking more about this, I could see rb at medium or high levels as a smart move. But certainly not at the micro level.

[uncleshady]

Winning multitablers on their own are not profitable. Ive witnessed this firsthand trying to clear this stupid Empire bonus. 1 and 2 dollar average 25NL and 3 dollar average .50/1. This is insane. The TAGs need fish more than party needs TAGs. With the table averages so low, there is less rake generated, it has to be connected..

HesseJam,

Well put. Interesting points. Can we agree that all in all there is an optimal balance somewhere?

Off Topic: Playing in these all TAG games vs. Party return

When a player begins to reach higher levels like 30-60 and up, aren't pretty much all the players TAGS? A fish arrives, gets his tushy spanked and then goes away. (Probably to lower levels). Do the high stakes player worry about the fact that all the players are TAGs? I'm guessing not. You would exploit the particular weakness of certain players, find the most "fishlike" player and try to mix it up with them more, etc.... I have a deal through multi. Multi has that reload madness. That combo is pretty much the eqivalent of double RB. When weighing out this situation, against going to party and following the fish, can I add value to the multipoker scenario because of the all TAG table training I'm receiving? I tend to think so, because in general this type of table is to be avoided per lack of fish, therefore some might struggle with it, or in the least be uncomfortable with it, when they are eventually faced with it. When you have goals of moving up (Ive been on 5/10 for the past 50-60,000 hands), you are indirectly having goals of moving to more all TAG tables.

I'd like your opinion on this. In no way is this an argumentative point about any previous posts. I just think you're well thought out, and I respect your opinion.

If I were to start a poker site, I'd make it as shark-unfriendly as possible for these very reasons.

They'd rather have the fish bounce money around and slowly lose it all to rake than have sharks take it off the table forever.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
So to the extent that TAGs require Party to spend more money on marketing, they reduce the bottom line. This is why we are undesirable.

[/ QUOTE ]
Party doesn't really need to spend money marketing to the TAGs - they need to market to the fish. The TAGs will find the good games on their own, after all, that's their job. Party needs to market to the fish (with bonuses and commercials and Mike Sexton).

[HesseJam]

While I might have some ideas about poker room economy, I am definately still a bad poker player who bottom feeds up to 2/4 with the occasional urge to get his a$$ spanked at higher levels. I am probably not competent enough to comment.

Thanks for your honesty. Love your avatar.

Can anyone else comment on my previuos post about TAG table training value?

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
If I were to start a poker site, I'd make it as shark-unfriendly as possible for these very reasons.

They'd rather have the fish bounce money around and slowly lose it all to rake than have sharks take it off the table forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depend on what your goals are. If you want to have a nice little site like True Poker and make a few bucks that is a good plan.

If you want to have a huge site like Party and be a public company whose revenues are expected to grow, then that won't work.

[dibbs]

I don't see what this really has to do with affiliates but whatever.

I feel this is incredibly over simplified. Also, I have no proof but I imagine sites make more money from players that play there longer. It doesn't matter if a good player amasses the most chips at a table, he's gonna pay rake for pretty much every pot he wins, just like everyone else. Who lasts longer, good players or bad players?

If a bad player only lasts for 10,000 hands and a good player lasts for 50,000, the good player makes them more money.

If the games become absolutely infested with tight players, there arent as many raked pots of course which would cut their profit down, but this lack of balance is seen relatively rarely.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]

The question you aren't asking, and the point that everyone is forgetting is 'so what if you paid $33k in rake, how much of it did Party get?' If you are playing at Party with no deal then sure, they are gettting all of it. But since you've been whining so much I'm guessing you play through a skin with a nice deal. How much of the rake do you really think Party gets from the skins? 50%? 30%? 0%? I don't really know and I doubt you or anyone else that has been posting knows either.

I am guessing that Party analyzed this pretty carefully and decided that they would be more profitable collecting 100% of the rake from fewer players. I suspect well over half of the skin traffic would have to leave the network entirely before this would be a money losing proposition for Party.



[/ QUOTE ]

ROTFLMFAO


--Zetack

Party Poker is a large site. They know very little about poker, but very much about business.

When you run poker games, all you want is players . Lots of them. There is only one sure fire way to get them and that is by making the games good and available. I ran a poker room for 5 years, and believe me when I tell you that sharks are NITS. They want everything for nothing and they make a living doing it. I'm not saying that they aren't valuable to the games or the rake, but they will be there if the fish are there.

Now, from Party's perspective, volume players are what they want. If everything was as cut and dry as you guys say (i.e. sharks vs. fish), then you all have valid points from both sides. Unfortunately, there are many more types of players. There was a study done in 2004 showing total number of winners for the entire year from all poker sites. I think 92% of accounts showed a loss from January 1st to December 31st. Only 1% of accounts make 5 digits or more for the year.

We are such a small percentage of the poker world, but forums like this make us feel like we're everybody. Also, we're not the only multi-tablers around. There are fish that multi-table, there are average players that multi-table, there are breakeven players that multi-table and there are PLENTY of LAGs who think they are winning TAGs. Party didn't allow 10 tables just to bring TAGs back. They don't even know what a TAG is. All they know is that people were playing on skins for these reasons:

1) The skins allowed them to play more than 4 tables at once
2) The skins affiliates had visible trackers and offered rakeback.

Party knews this and made the necessary changes to their software and affiliate accounts. Party always had and always will have a "no rakeback policy". They let affiliates see their trackers again for a very good reason. They want affiliates to offer rakeback (for now) to bring not just TAGs, but players in general back to their site. They will never openly advertise rakeback for the simple fact that not everyone is aware of it. Most winners know about it. Some average players know, some don't, and the fish just don't care. Also note, that rakeback doesn't come from Party Poker. It comes from affiliates. And affiliates are not Party Poker. They are players just like you and me.

As far as allowing 10 tables, they know people went to the skins so they could play more than 4 games. They don't know or care what kind of players did that. They just want those players too.

The sooner we can grasp this next concept, the better it will be for all of us:

Party does NOT evaluate poker the way we do, but they are far from being dumb. They know about marketing. They know to have the best games. They know to be on the cutting edge of all software features and accessiblity. They know that the players that play the most are more valuable, and they don't give a rat's ass about who wins or loses.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
I think 92% of accounts showed a profit from January 1st to December 31st.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has got to be a typo, right?

Great post regardless.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think 92% of accounts showed a profit from January 1st to December 31st.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has got to be a typo, right?


Great post regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks

Yes, it was a typo. I fixed it.

[Chillout]

--deleted--

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
If everyone will play an equal number of hands: fish

If each TAG will play 10x as many hands as each fish: TAGs

Which do you think is closer to reality?

(obviously, if an empty player pool is filled with TAGs, the TAGs will leave, so I think the PP situation is different)

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say your assumption is wrong based on the fact that 80,000 TAGs would be playing there within 4 weeks of these fish turning up.

Edit : If it was my site I might consider protecting my fish by offering less possible tables, I know this wouldn't be popular with you guys but if I marketed well and the games had a lot of fish in them this kind of idea would balance the games out a little more imo.

Mack

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If everyone will play an equal number of hands: fish

If each TAG will play 10x as many hands as each fish: TAGs

Which do you think is closer to reality?

(obviously, if an empty player pool is filled with TAGs, the TAGs will leave, so I think the PP situation is different)

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say your assumption is wrong based on the fact that 80,000 TAGs would be playing there within 4 weeks of these fish turning up.

Edit : If it was my site I might consider protecting my fish by offering less possible tables, I know this wouldn't be popular with you guys but if I marketed well and the games had a lot of fish in them this kind of idea would balance the games out a little more imo.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that Party is a traded company, showing short term profits probably is much more important to them than trying to micromanage the balance between fish and sharks.

So that they did increase the table limit was probably a no brainer for them. They are growing and showing profit but the stock price is falling.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If everyone will play an equal number of hands: fish

If each TAG will play 10x as many hands as each fish: TAGs

Which do you think is closer to reality?

(obviously, if an empty player pool is filled with TAGs, the TAGs will leave, so I think the PP situation is different)

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say your assumption is wrong based on the fact that 80,000 TAGs would be playing there within 4 weeks of these fish turning up.

Edit : If it was my site I might consider protecting my fish by offering less possible tables, I know this wouldn't be popular with you guys but if I marketed well and the games had a lot of fish in them this kind of idea would balance the games out a little more imo.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that Party is a traded company, showing short term profits probably is much more important to them than trying to micromanage the balance between fish and sharks.

So that they did increase the table limit was probably a no brainer for them. They are growing and showing profit but the stock price is falling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I basically agree that showing short term growth could be more important now they are listed. However there are two types of growth;

a) Managed sustainable growth, that will compliment the business in the future and add to it's long term profitability.

b) Non-sustainable growth, based on false economy and ultimately damaging the long term success of the company.

In my opinion adding too many TAGs is a case of b), and also I think one TAG playing eight tables is very little different than four playing two tables. I just think it's fairly easy for the make-up of a sites player profile to become irreconcilibly imbalanced, and that it would lead to a steady decline in the number of players and hands played.

Mack