Gone Away wrote
at 10:53 PM, Friday October 30, 2015 EDT
Sock boy,,do you have anyone at your end who listens to your babble??/


I can think of atleast 1 and a half peoples right off the top of my head. The half a person only listened to half lol. (I'm gonna miss my Halloween avatar).


As for the rest of the brilliant minds of this thread...who have now CONVINCED me they're onto something....I now think we can go 1 better! Hear me out, Ima let me finish.....


Only small rolls at the micros, and small weeners! That way only the girls get the high tables in a less harrasing environment! Think it will fly?!!

Bama, if you think its unfair to play low, you don't have to, but I know plenty of people that actually prefer to play deep, probably half of all players, and they want you there. This threads only purpose is to throw down a guilt trip and should be swiftly ignored. There ARE other more reasonable ways around this, such as having heads up SNG's @ all levels which actually encourage people with large rolls to not only find people that match their skills for a quick buck, as opposed to a donkey ring for a slow buck, but also hu sngs are unquestionably the best place for (tilting) whales to go, which keeps them off the lows. Anyway just relax monkeys, Ihave nothing further to add, except that (unequitable) social polocies often lead quickly to more or worse fascist ones with even more problems than began. Gl

I bet that nut bag spends the day sniffing his own farts ! Bama,thanks for the post.I think you are a class act and it is a pleasure playing with you on ANY table.

I think fechin's farts are the classiest. Oh, and I'm 5 years old as well.

Bama, you can play on any table you want. I have no idea why you feel guilty playing low (unless effective table banter has got stuck in your head?). There are high rollers who wouldn't dare try super high rolling. Do we ban them from 6 star resorts and only allow them at 5 star? This entire thread and proposition is ridiculous and baseless. They're spoilt brats that need some military time. We'll see how their farts hold up there. Just let this thread die, with all the other non thought out ideas. I've seen Nazi propaganda less smelly than this thread. I'm sorry I wished you luck with it fetch in. Best you learn to hold your farts and get a job and stop your bitching and obsessing about all things fart/your ass related.

Being able to choose to play high or low with a low roll is the EXACT same principle as with a high roll. Fechin, nobody wastes their time thinking like you, they all have jobs to pay for your fkn food stamps.

Sniff,,,,,LOL

Update-

In light of new information I was only made aware of today (ie. Unlimited In-App refills of 100k which itself raises a lot of ethical questions requiring a seperate thread) I can no longer claim to be definitively opposed to OP's proposal, in fact I'm open to it because i see now its relevant (which I may have been earlier if he had made a stronger case to begin, but that's moot).

I also think OP is on the right track with the limit amount, but I would say 99k is the (bankroll) limit you can play at the lowest rings. No other restrictions at all need apply. When people try and buy a medal, they'll refill to 100k (if I'm correct) and won't be able to sit low. Sounds good/fair.


I'm still not a fan of segregation, but I'm much less a fan of greed and corruption, and OP's propasal might just help counter set things better. The only other time I could envision bankroll segregation useful would be if there was 1 poker site on the whole planet, i'd think there would be an organic uprising in favour of segregation in that instance, which is why it seemed so far off reality originally for me here.


My apologies to the OP for my about face and gl in championing your cause. I won't add much more here except that I think the chip inequity on this site is a consequence of other factors, and OP's idea might only end up a temp band-aid solution if fully embraced.

Hey Ryan, I have a new membership model proposal, that might completely diffuse the calls for bankroll segregation. I don't know your books so haven't crunched all the numbers, but maybe you or your accountant should, because I might just be onto something. But let's be clear, if you use the following model, segregation stays off the table, because I've offset it. But it remains your model, I've only improved it to make it fairer, which in itself grows profits-

With regards to Membership Fees (therefore in-app purchases are scrapped) is as follows-

$5 p/m= 100k chips (any payment method, incl verifiable)
$10 p/m= 150k chips (verifiable payments only)
$20 p/m= 250k chips (verifiable payments only)


PLUS, throw in the condition that (subscription) members can only make 1 (verifiable) transaction per month.





Ryan, you're welcome.,..and now I don't ever need to start a thread about it, because you are now so attentive to the cumulative needs round here these days.

As this site has a roll over with chips every month and players play for a medal in top 100 this would not work and also would be a very unfair advantage to players who do not believe in paying for chips on a free site. Even those chips that players can buy on the app is unfair and it is almost a medal before you even start playing. If Ryan decided to change the roll over to win chips and keep them which gives no one a goal or challenge then that would work like it does on all the other sites. But this site is unique cause of that roll over and the sociability side of it.

She is simply pathetic.

Totally appreciate the feedback. I can even extrapolate bwanas comment.

First things first. Ryan has to balance paying the bills and satisfying customers. Sounds easy in theory, but in reality requires tons of luck, as well as restructuring as and when needed.

From about day 2 here I got the jist of his model, then a full grasp recently thanks to the assistance of members.

Ryan has a unique, enjoyable concept here. He's worked and continues to. He has every reason and right to make money from it.

In fact, he's taught me a thing about subscription models, and that is, if its feasible and makes sense to let people play for free on it then it should be an option. And here I can tell its not just an option, but its a beloved tradition that only a braver person than me would ever argue against. Ryan has begun with Gpokr, the dual subscription model, and it works, at least to this point. Its an even playing field in that anyone can pay or just play. It means the brokest unluckiest person in THE WORLD can even reach glory here, and still be treated as well as any other member, whilst not blowing a cent on rake, fees, tax. That is unique, you'd struggle hard to find that elsewhere without giving up something, like your optional right to privacy. Ryan does not owe us free poker, he's just constructed a monthly comp that allows him to gladly offer it.


You refer to the chip rollover each month Maddie, (which is more of a balance/career rank rollover) but neglect to remember that it only rolls over IF YOU DON'T LOSE THEM!, and with everyone gunning for first, enivitably people will lose them.

So basically if you want an advantage (which is not a guarantee) you need to pay something! (like I've layed out) but the current model does, I agree, go too far and allows the entire comp to be corrupted, incl the person running the comp.


I'm very confident (bar not having missed a gaping loophole) that my model restores an abundance of fairness for not less revenue, but possibly even more.

Maddie, do you want addicts buying 2 million chips per month like they are now, or, do you want to see what would be the majority of them capped at 250k? I would think the latter is healthier in every aspect, and many addicts will accept this health/help/restriction because they want it, and get little consideration and support elsewhere, which almost tricks and blinds them from their problem.


Anyway, I'm time bankrupt, but will check up on this thread one day if it gains interest.

We don't need 8 threads on this, but I'm sure fetch appreciates contributions. Only just slipped off front page.


Stoney63 http://www.gpokr.com/profile/45152889 wrote
at 7:54 AM, Wednesday November 25, 2015 EST

"<
About a month ago fechin suggested a 100K chip limit for 25/50 tables & I agree with him. Now, if there is no limit for a maximum why should there be a limit for a minimum, I mean, if you're going to play against normal poker procedures than lets play against all of them. I suggest no minimum limit for all tables, in other words, if I have 15K in chips I should be allowed to enter a 500/1000 game & play 1 hand all in, why not, if you're going to play by non-poker rules then lets do it all the way. I've played poker at lots of different casinos & at every one of them you not only had a minimum stack to enter the table, but you also had a maximum stack to enter./