[OrianasDaad]

While I cannot claim to know with 100% accuracy what the original poster intended, he has stated numerous times in this thread that he intended a discussion of whether or not this would be in the best interest of a poker site. I'll take that at face value.

My argument:

Poker sites make money by maximizing the amount of rake they take in.

Long-term multi-tabling expert players generate more rake than your average short-term recreational non-expert player. I'll assume that the relationship is inversely proportional.

Your suggestion (the OP) is that it is in the sites' best interest to "level the playing field", or rather make the game into an EV neutral game, with a slight house advantage. With most sites raking 5-10% at the lower limits, this would make the game worse than roulette, from a gambling perspective.

I would be willing to wager that a group of long-term expert players would notice that they cannot win a signifigant amount over the long term. A signifigant statistical difference would probably spell doom for any poker site.

Aside from that, programming something like this would be a nightmare. The poker AI for something like this would be an insanely good player. It would be more likely that the site had some bots running. They would be easier to program. Look up "opponent modelling".

If you look at the bots that are out there, you'll see that these are fairly easy to beat in both full and short-handed games.

Smaller sites won't have a strong enough base of long-term expert players to sustain this type of activity.

Consider what type of cards a player with a VPIP of 85+ would need to break even against an expert player in a ring game.

The idea just isn't feasable, yet.

Edit:

Here's what I said earlier in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
One skilled, long-term multi-tabler, pays as much rake perhaps as at least two or three single-tabling fish.

This has been discussed before. I've always maintained that it was in the poker-room's best interests to keep feeding the sharks.

Since there are alot of paranoid freaks out there, I don't see the poker-rooms screwing with their algorithims too much, but I could be wrong. I don't think it's in any sites' best interest to have it where nobody wins except in the short term.

Mostly, I disagree with what you posted. Pokerstars support has it right. Here's your homework assignment:

Go back into PT and look at your flop and turn winning %'s for those string of bad beats. How bad off were you really? Remember, a poker-player who is dishonest with themself is a losing player, so please avoid stretching the truth at all.


[/ QUOTE ]
Mostly the same thing in fewer words. Why such wisdom was ignored is beyond me.