An infinite number of tables if player can average a certain average response time at all tables.
That time would be tricky to calculate I'm sure and would have to vary depending on table format and such but I think this the best way. Also exaggerates the already interesting dilemma of quality/quantity.
I see merits for both cap it and not.
Yes: Well if ppl keep timing out etc it sucks because we all try to get as many hands in as possible…
No: Why would you want to limit someone? It's up to everyone individually how many tables they want to play. To more they play the less they can focus on everyone.
What's his face, Randiy Lew (nanonoko) and others like him; admittedly they are in the minority, but don't you think they might leave your site if they were restricted? Our own pleno1 freely admits to playing the max at zoom.
And what about MTTs, it's not as if they are speeding along so quick that people multi tournamenting can't keep up is it? Or is it?
I can see no problem with having as many as you can, I am patient enough to wait for you to play your turn! 
Fwiw, Bovada has become a clear US market leader with a recreational anonymous model and a 4-table limit for ring games. That market is specific as sites need to collect a lot of rake per player to enable fast cashouts, but also look at the rise of 888, allowing up to 6 cash tables only, in the non-US market. Of course no one has to limit MTT tables (there are indeed too few running anyway), they both don't.
Recreational players just want to get online and have some games to choose from. People being able to play more tables generates more action and thus the site has more appeal to the casual player.
Originally posted by gadget51
I can see no problem with having as many as you can, I am patient enough to wait for you to play your turn!Yeah, but recreational players are not.
I see several zzzzzs a day, which is obviously not good.
That's a reasonable point actually. People should play an amount that doesn't slow down play for everyone else.
I stopped playing for a while back maybe 3 years ago because it took a fricking aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaage to get a hand in thanks to mass multitablers.
This needs to be stopped asap - it does ruin the game for a lot of players IMO.
Cap it until you can prove you can MT without slowing it down for everyone else
Originally posted by HollyMichelle
I stopped playing for a while back maybe 3 years ago because it took a fricking aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaage to get a hand in thanks to mass multitablers.This needs to be stopped asap - it does ruin the game for a lot of players IMO.
Cap it until you can prove you can MT without slowing it down for everyone else
Stars does this if I'm not mistaken - it sets your table limits according to your speed.
Originally posted by MJPerry
Originally posted by HollyMichelle
I stopped playing for a while back maybe 3 years ago because it took a fricking aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaage to get a hand in thanks to mass multitablers.This needs to be stopped asap - it does ruin the game for a lot of players IMO.
Cap it until you can prove you can MT without slowing it down for everyone else
Stars does this if I'm not mistaken - it sets your table limits according to your speed.
Correct. And it's a recent change.
Originally posted by double2
Originally posted by MJPerry
Originally posted by HollyMichelle
I stopped playing for a while back maybe 3 years ago because it took a fricking aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaage to get a hand in thanks to mass multitablers.This needs to be stopped asap - it does ruin the game for a lot of players IMO.
Cap it until you can prove you can MT without slowing it down for everyone else
Stars does this if I'm not mistaken - it sets your table limits according to your speed.
Correct. And it's a recent change.
Great idea imo!
Day 23
This one is purely subjective and abit of fun. What is the prettiest poker hand to see online and in what suit (colour)
Originally posted by pleno1
What is the prettiest poker hand to see online and in what suit (colour)
That depends on the card design you chose in your poker room, doesn't it?
As someone who uses a traditional two color deck design, I'd say it's KK. Gives you the excitement of AA while offering prettier pictures. Not sure about the suits, maybe spades and hearts?
I also like TT for some reason, but I think I'd prefer spades and clubs in that case.
If we were talking about real cards, I'd probably say it's A :spade:K :spade:, because the ace of spades typically has some cool design that is unique to the deck printed on it.
Originally posted by RasTweet
AA The suit doesn't really matter does it? ♦
This AINEC.
Originally posted by MJPerry
Recreational players just want to get online and have some games to choose from. People being able to play more tables generates more action and thus the site has more appeal to the casual player.
This is the case for SnGs (they start faster), but not for cash games, where the main factor is regs' willingness to start tables (or play 2-4-max when recs start them, which some of recs don't want to do), which is lower when they play at too many (and especially low on iPoker, fwiw; that's why Ongame and the MPN have abolished waiting lists).
