.
Congratz, it seems, hard work was done, for next limit, i think, you can do the same, but reduce amount of tables before you feel comfortable.bassel123 said:
Just being nice! But yeah my BS senses were tingling... then I realised after i posted it was the same guy from the other threadSuns of Beaches said:
Why you always have to appear in a thread and bring everyone back to earth? 😄Suns of Beaches said:
100% agreeSuns of Beaches said:
You can only 4-table max. on Stars per buyin level in ZOOM. And you can only 3-table on 888 SNAP tables. Aside from the rest of the post reeking of nonsense, you haven't even researched the number of tables one can play to make it even remotely believable.bassel123 said:
Is this limitation true for zoom tables as well? I know it was implemented on regular tables, as a reason to avoid bumhunting and other things theocratically, but what would be the point of limiting zoom tables? If one can play 8 tables of this fast-paced madness - why prohibit it?Poker Orifice said:
Because honestly, 4 or 5 tables is pretty much the max. that any normal human could play without occasionally timing out &/or slowing the game down for the rest of the player pool.iwont20 said:
That makes sense, thanks 🙂👍Poker Orifice said:
Yes exactly this. Just imagine if a total of 40 people are playing, and the same player has 6 or 8 entries. Then they would need to wait for tables to form, which they were not already on, and other players would see them in every single hand, which is not the idea of the format. So of course there has to be a limitation.Poker Orifice said:
It makes it easy to discern who the regs. are.fundiver199 said:
In theory the reason would be the same as the cap on regular cash tables. To make it more difficult to play poker for profit and hopefully make the games softer. The german government has enforced a 4 table cap for all sort of games and across sites, and presumably this is because, they prefer people to spend time on other things than playing poker professionally.iwont20 said:
And I think, my friend, that you are just a liar.bassel123 said:
It is for sure difficult to see, why he need advice on how to beat 5NL and 10NL, if he has been able to win an amazing $1.500 or 750 BIs at 2NL in just one month. In fact he is the one, who should be giving advice to all us mortals, who can only dream about such resultsmssmotilda said:And I think, my friend, that you are just a liar.
How many hands of ZOOM style poker have you played? On which sites? What... a few thousand hands on 1 site?fundiver199 said:
Dont know the exact number, but maybe around 100k or so. Most on PokerStars but also a decent number on 888 Poker and a few on ACR.Poker Orifice said:
Most hands were in my old (now crashed) PT4 database from PokerStars. And running filters in that database there were some fairly large differences, like the situation "raising over a limp" happening far more often at regular tables than at similar style Zoom tables. Zoom tables at least on Stars also have notoriously low players per flop numbers. So yes they are generally a nit-fest, and regular tables are softer. At least if you do a bit of table selection, which of course you should. There is no reason to sit on a 6-max table and battle it out with 5 other regs.Poker Orifice said: