That's nice, but then the rest of this post seemed the most hostile yet for no apparent reason so allow me to apologise in advance if my tone is harsh but your post annoyed me and so I feel it warrants more than the pleasant and polite reply that I'm sure PokerStars Dylan will give you.
Originally Posted by DoubleJ
why not try them before you get yourself all worked up and have a go at this poor guy who has to take you seriously?
To answer your question - I don't know for sure, as I've never played fast tables; mebbe they're the nuts
I'm a New Zealander, and as such think that this makes zero sense. If you would have more "freedom of choice" were PokerStars to not exist at all, maybe you could argue like this. As it is, PokerStars is adding one or two choice(s) to your life, not taking any away that would by default be there. Just because they've previously enriched your life with two choices doesn't mean you're entitled to this forever. You may as well complain about the Man holding you under his evil corporate thumb because KFC doesn't sell popcorn chicken any more.
From my POV, though, i was disappointed at the news about table speeds as:
1) I'm English, and as such detest having my Freedom of Choice compromised, especially by $MultiBillion Corporates
Do you play more than one table? If so, playing fewer "fast" tables (so that you have roughly the same rate of hands/hr if that's a concern for you, but as you yourself implied volume should be secondary to thought while developing) is one easy solution to your problem that seems to have no downside and could in fact improve your development-- less individual players for you to try to keep track of.
2) As evidenced by my membership here, i'm a student of the game and am concerned about the impact of being forced to play faster is going to have on my development. I do not want to go back to playing robot-style
If you only play one table, see above about trying the fast tables before getting your knickers in a twist- I'd be extremely surprised if you are unable to comfortably 1-table the "fast" tables. Just checking, are you aware of the timebank feature? (this might be of help to you too, Cobra) The timebank means you have more than 8 seconds for the difficult decisions.
Firstly, I agree with TLR that the lobby is complicated/cluttered. That said, I don't see this particular change having a big impact on that one.
As I said before, I don't see the how unifying tables this way provides any player benefits. If there are player who don't like the pace of the Normal tables, they already hav
e the Fast table option. (Or are these the players who are too stupid to work the Lobby?
Secondly, (@misteronggggg as well) if the recreational players are too "stupid" to find the fast tables and go play somewhere else, then either you can sit and breakeven while feeling superior that you're smart, or the lobby can be redesigned so that the recreational players are happier, stay, and you have an easier time winning money.
sounds like from daven's post he's a) in support of this change and b) was trying to make the point that of course businesses are going to try to maximise profits, the follow-on being that they will of course put their interests before yours, and that your apparent feeling that pokerstars owes you something isn't going to play a big role in their decision. Make a case that this change will be worse for enough players that it will also be worse for pokerstars, not a case that it will be worse for you personally while not explaining why stars should give a crap about this. (what daven and jyms already said)
As daven pointed out in his wacky antipodean fashion, this does rather smack of further fleecing the micro player to help pay off the $720m you owe the DOJ.
Seems perfectly coherent to me, maybe you should just reread it. Liquidity in this case can be used as good as synonymously with "traffic" or "player pool", but used here on a table-type basis, rather than site-wide. Hopefully that clears up why your point here doesn't make sense.
Again, your point about Liquidity is puzzling - can you explain what this means to
a) me as a player and
b) you as a Business?
In particular your statement "The more table types we have, the less liquidity each type will necessarily have" is not coherent.
If liquidity is so important, then why not just offer one table type (let's say $100 PLO). Then you'll have 100% liquidity.
But not much of a player pool.