$100/$200 on Party

[XXXNoahXXX]

Any reason why they only have two tables open when the waiting list for each is over 30 players long?

[ike]

So you don't bust out too soon.

[highlife]

because your name has more than two X's in it.

[TStoneMBD]

touche on the triplex-name-triplex. most people would have went for quad x's here which would have just been overkill.

[XXXNoahXXX]

It's nice that you can have a real question and get a straightforward answer. I really appreciate it.

[glen]

ike answered your question. maybe you took it personally, but since they only had 2 30-60s for a long time and then the cycle repeated itself with the 50s and 100s, he may assume you are new to poker and therefore would go broke quickly in the 100-200. . .

[XXXNoahXXX]

I don't plan on playing in these limits, I was just wondering from a business perspective, wouldn't it be more profitable to at least open it up to 4 tables? Even if it ended up being a lot of people 4-tabling at least they'd be pulling in more rake and more people would get a chance to play without waiting hours. If you have any insight into the logic behind this reasoning, I'd appreciate hearing it.

[Bartholow]

Chances are the people who want to play in this game ARE 4-tabling (at least), both while waiting for the game and while playing in it. But the ones that are losers go broke slower if they can't just jump in 100/200 all the time and play as many tables of it as they want.

[psyduck]

Fish generate more rake for Party by playing at lower limits and playing a lot more hands. Fish are more likely to go broke at higher limits.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
Fish generate more rake for Party by playing at lower limits and playing a lot more hands. Fish are more likely to go broke at higher limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think once you hit that level it doesn't matter too much really (maybe? just a guess). You don't think fish are going to get torn apart at 30/60 either?

Also, *maybe* party could lower the rake instead of charging $5 a hand at 50/100 and 100/200