My take on this issue is, that poker sites, professional, and semiprofessional players have a common interest in securing, that recreational players come into the game and then continue playing, because this is the only way, anyone can make a profit.
I also think, its pretty clear, that online poker has been in a slow decline for 10 years, and especially the traditional cash game tables are in danger of dyeing a slow shark filled death. The consensus seem to be, that if new players lose their money to fast, they are unlikely to continue playing, so the question should be, how can poker sites make new players lose their money more slowly?
One possible answer is to try and change the "shark to fish" ratio, so that each table on average is containing more fish and less sharks. This is basically, what PokerStars is trying to do with the table cap. People playing more than 4 tables are generally winners, so when they are forced to play less, there will be less sharks at the table. Maybe some will also react by moving up, which will further soften the games.
The other option is to try and take edges away from the sharks. This is, what
partypoker has done not only by banning HUDs but also by killing the traditional poker lobby, so players can no longer chose, which table to enter, or which seat. This makes "bum hunting" much more difficult and force sharks to spend more time playing against each other.
I think, its fairly subjective, which solution is best. Personal preferences surely play a role here. I like to play with a HUD, and I rarely play much more than 4 tables, so for me the solution, PokerStars has chosen, is nearly ideal and might actually see me return to the site as my main place to play cash games.
I dont think, PartyPokers solution is wrong though. The only part, I am highly critical about, is getting rid of hand histories. I feel, this put the integrety of online poker in jeopardy, and it also take away the option of players to work on their game away from the tables. Sure this might also "level the playing field", but I think, this is taking it to far. After all poker is an information game, so taking nearly all information out of the game is sort of making it dumber.
The main proponent of the changes on PartyPoker has been Rob Yong, who is a casino owner and also high stakes live poker player. Doug Polk has recently analysed a number of hands, Rob Yong played on TV, on his YouTube channel. And Rob Yong is entering pots with hands like 73s and generally playing in a way, that online would earn him a "fish" mark from every single regular very quickly.
And I cant help thinking, that this also say a lot about the changes on PartyPoker. Maybe Rob Yong feel, that poker should be all about
gambling and having fun, and that it is wrong to even try to develop a long term winning strategy. From the perspective of a casino owner that sort of make sense, because if nobody is winning long term, then all the money end up as rake.
But as poker players we need to ask ourselfes, if this is also our ideal for the game? For me personally I am not going to play poker, if its not allowed to be a long term winning player, or if games are made essentially unbeatable. And therefore I am not really on board with the way, Rob Yong think about this.
As for what further steps poker sites might take, including PokerStars, I think, they are going to take some time to evaluate the effect of the table cap, because they look to implement further big changes. For now however the result does seem to be, that traffic at PokerStars is slightly down, but the cash games have become noteciably softer and looser, as was the intention.