Re: Hey Dikshit
[ 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%.
[/ QUOTE ]
Woops, good point. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] In my defense, the problem is that I represented the situation as a play/ hour thing. TAG's could play this much more than fish, but they'd have to be playing more hours of the day, week, month, in addition to multi-tabling.
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
I agree, but the reduction in pot size and variance may have the benefit of allowing the worst/ unluckiest fish to survive longer.
Also, I have no idea how much of the 70/10 equation is represented by MT TAGS. However, I do think that if you accept the hourly rake argument, these highest volume players are the most important/ lucrative for the poker room, and unless they count for a truly negligable % of the total action (not my experience MTing myself) they're important to retain.
|