somapopper,

this is an excellent analysis. Between you and mackthefork I think everything has been covered.
But firstly, please explain this:

[ QUOTE ]
10,000 players- 1,000 MT 9,000 fish

scenario 1: MT's leave. Fish play each other at the same rate. 9,000 fish play in 900 cash ring games generating x rake per hour.

scenario 2: MT's stay. 3,000 cash ring games run (MT's account for 70% of action). 7 MT's and 3 fish at each table generating 3.33x rake per hour.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do 1000 multitablers account for 2,100 full tables, unless they play 21 tables each?

Assume each one 5 tables, that's 500 extra tables on top of the 900 existing. That's about a 50% increase in rake, not 333%. In addition, the games tighten up considerably (which reduces ave. pot and the 50% figure), and the fish go broke quicker and are more likely to not return. Less action is also a disincentive for new players. So it's far closer than it would seem.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say for the sake of argument that multi-tablers seeking rake back do account for 10% of the player base and 70% of the rake contributed (where rake contributed indicates the share of total raked hands played).

[/ QUOTE ]
The 10%/70% statement has a lot wrong with it. I don't even know how or why it found its way into the Party press release quoted, but it's easily explained.

According to their own numbers, Party has 9 million registered players. Most of those play very rarely and at smaller stakes. By sheer number of hands played, the top 10% who play regularly will generate almost all of the rake. How many of these are multi multi tabling pros who care about rakeback and read 2+2? I suspect less than 2%. So your numbers don't really apply to this case imo.
The assumption that these 10% are multitabling pros is a big one to make.