What happened to 30/60 short tables? - Page 2

mach3 · #11 08-13-2005, 04:46 PM

It's very strange. I would think those tables would be a big money maker for party since the full rake is taken almost every hand. I'm not sure they are "protecting fish", because I recognize most of the names I played with everyday.

mach3 · #12 08-13-2005, 08:48 PM

Party is retarded. There are no 30/60's w/ less then 8 people. I truly fail to see their logic, perhaps I'm crazy even looking for it.

mach3 · #13 08-15-2005, 12:27 AM

Am I the only one upset about what's happend at the 30/60? It's hard to get a seat now!!! I've only got one game going and waitlisted for the other 3... they have definitely reduced the # of 30/60 tables.

Nigel · #14 08-15-2005, 12:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one upset about what's happend at the 30/60? It's hard to get a seat now!!! I've only got one game going and waitlisted for the other 3... they have definitely reduced the # of 30/60 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear ya. Hard to even get a seat. It's been exactly 25 tables ever since the change - so I think they have it capped at 25 and it looks like it's staying that way.

In my opinion, it's completely killed the game. Game selection is basically non-existant now, as getting a seat at any table is a challenge in itself (especially with PP's screwy wait list bugs). I've also noticed the number of fish dropping off even more since the change, with 25 tables seeming just about enough to hold all the multi-tablers. I basically find myself staying and playing on tables where my edge is probably small and I wouldn't have even considered playing on last month.

Nigel

mach3 · #15 08-15-2005, 12:56 AM

I'm just stunned, the demand is obviously there for more tables. I guess you were right and party is "protecting the fish". I'm guessing 20/40 is now the only choice for SH. Or I might have to check out the 30/60 games at stars and UB?

Turning Stone Pro · #16 08-15-2005, 07:40 AM

This sucks. There are just enough 30-60 tables for all the multi-tablers, and maybe one weakie and two average players. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

TSP

mach3 · #17 08-15-2005, 11:13 AM

So any theories? Was the 30/60 really breaking people too fast? I believe they added them in mid May - so it's been about 3 months.

Turning Stone Pro · #18 08-15-2005, 01:01 PM

I have no idea, other than PP wants to encourage the better players to have less choices in the 30 game, so that there are less big losers and less big winners, generating continued action, and guaranteeing consistent rakes.

For instance, with a lot of short tables, I would come in on my lunch break, find a person or two on my buddy list in a short game, pick up 1,000 or so, not pay a lot of rake, and go back to work.

Tougher to do that now.

TSP

mach3 · #19 08-15-2005, 04:00 PM

Most of my "buddies" consistently played SH games, no matter how bad they were. I would think those "dabbling" would stick to full ring games???

Nigel · #20 08-15-2005, 11:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
so that there are less big losers and less big winners, generating continued action, and guaranteeing consistent rakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's the key. Cram a whole bunch of relatively equally skilled players in on 25 tables and let them pass their money around for the next year while Party just collects rake.

Maybe they looked at the amount of money the winning players were cashing out each month from the 30 game and crapped themselves.