Any thoughts on making the nonturbo 180man ($11 specifically) blind levels 10 minutes (or even 12) instead of 15 to make them finish a little quicker? I actually assumed they were 10 minutes at first since that's what the other nonturbo SNGs are.

+ 1000000

Completely agree with you. 15 mins its too much, 10 mins would be more than enought. Perfect for me would be the first 5 levels of blinds 10 mins and the rest 15 mins.

$11/180(reg speed) dropped already?

they don't appear in client till 2pm GMT (i think thats 9am EST)

LostOstrich won't like this (giggle) but I hugely agree for the $4s aswell.

No. Definitely not. Keep it at 15 minutes. For both 11s and 4.50s.

Why do people want to try and push the structure towards a turbo? It basically defeats the object of asking Stars to offer them in the first place. Not everyone wants to play flipaments. Deeper stacked play can be fun too.

If you want faster blinds then go and play the 8s and 15s. I hear they're very popular. There is a very clear and distinctive dividing line between the two structures. Let's keep it that way.

TT

I hope the bolded statement wasn't some witty remark with the purpose of insulting me. Yes, the 8s and 15s (as well as the 3rs) are popular.

A switch to 10-12 minute blinds wouldn't create "flipaments" as you call them. The 10 minute regular speed SNG structure offers plenty of play.

I'm a huge fan of the slow 180s, but I'm open to the possibility that they could be improved by reducing the level time to 10 or 12 mins. A bigger concern (for the site, at least) could be that making them more grinder-friendly would affect liquidity in turbos.

In my ideal world, all 180s would be 10 min blinds. But what would suit me wouldn't necessarily maximise the rake for Stars or the hourly for other regs.

If they were 10 min blinds or even 12 min they would 100% become more popular and doing so would not turn them into flippaments at all.

I'm sure this has been suggested a million times, but how about showing some love for the 45 and 180 mans in a separate Battle of the Planets tier? Or some different side contest altogether. It kind of bums me out that I've had a sick week with the 45 mans and I have no leaderboard to look at.

What's the latest on Zoom tournaments / SnG's? They are coming at some point, right?

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned before but what about a turbo 27 man?
They might detract from the 45s at off peak times, but during peak times I think they would be popular enough.
Stars could trial them at peak times just like the $11 non-turbo 180s.

what you think for a new sit-go 180m rebuys???

I believe that $8.18+0.82 Rebuys 180m is a pretty good, and send email to support.

If you agree, send a email too for give us a new option.

Ty

we've been asking for this for months, and they just tell us no for liquidity concerns, then trial random other sngs. I've given up hope at this point.

They've had months since this thread started to sort out a new BOP structure and/or different types of tourney leaderboards for SnG's. They're a joke.

custom themes needs new choices as player field, buy in, speed etc.
just mtt/sng/cg/zoom isnt enough

yes please, I like to change the felt colour for satelites for example, but it's a pain doing it individually

Are there any statements made by Pokerstars regarding Zoom tourneys?

They replied to my email saying ZOOM is still in the beta stage, blah blah blah!! But it sounded like they will get them going eventually. I'm trying to remember how long it took Tilt to introduce RUSH tournaments.

please no zoom mttsngs

The 135man+ Rush On-Demand SNGs on FTP seemed to work much better than the 180 mans on Stars are atm, imo. A big problem with the 45/180 mans on Stars is that the effective structure is appalling because the average time to act from the large number of regs means that the hands per level is incred low. I think recreational players would enjoy a Zoom MTTSNG more because they won't feel like they're waiting 2 minutes for mass tabling regs to timeout fold every single hand.

Seriously, SNG regs are their own worst enemy.

The FTP rush mttsng zooms never worked better then 180 mans now or at any point in the past year. Secondly your other point at waiting 2 minutes this isnt true the max you could ever stall is 1 minute at that there are maybe a handful of people that it comes to this. All zoom mttsng will do is make regs migrate to another facet of poker. You are right I imagine SNG regs are the recreational players worst nightmares because they have a higher skill level but, they also account for a huge huge portion of the fields everyday.

I wasn't talking about individuals stalling I was talking about the cumulative effect of having 6-7 regs on one table each taking 20+ seconds to fold a crappy hand because they're attending to so many tables. It's a real turn off for exactly the people we need in the games because it becomes so boring and its bad for regs because there's less easy money and the structures are effectively made worse because of fewer hands per hour. SNG Regs' solution to this issue is to play more tables to try and make up the hourly but of course this just makes it worse.

The other main problem is that Stars' client is confusing for new players and they don't find most suitable game for their time/buyin requirements because they can't be bothered learning all about all the poker terms and what's on offer. In my experience most people who are new to poker assume Sit & Go is the same thing as a cash game because "you can sit or go when you want right?"

agree with all this but, the stalling ordeal will always be there given not as bad because you may act before some of the slower paced players if zoom takes over the world. I think zoom will just ruin the integrity of the game more all thats going to happen is player will become more robotic not having timing tells and flow to incorporate instead it will be HEM numbers being all that matters. If zoom does get incorporated I think there should either be everyone is anonymous or HEM cant be run in them.

You're worried about losing timing tells but would be fine with anonymous tables?