Warning - almost as tl;dr as Alex's post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Wice
... the following could work better: have a computer algorithm anticipate demand and determine when to start the next game on the server ....... eg. a game will be starting in 3 minutes and currently X people are registered (with a cap of 180 players registered.) ...
... instead of starting the SNG when 180 people register, why not have an MTT (with 180 player cap) start at 12:34pm? A computer should know what the demand is anyways ...
Both of these variations could work okay-ish, as long as you're only keeping one lobby open for registering at a time. Having multiple tourneys open at once will only make the SNG lobby even more untidy than it already is (bearing in mind that, apparently, most recreationals don't use the lobby filters like we do). I know that it has been cleaned up with all the columns, and better filter options, but even so, there's still a lot of games to choose from, and we don't want to add more. People given too many choices are often wracked with indecision and don't choose at all. Remember the last time you went out for a meal, and someone took ten minutes just to decide on the crab-cake starter? And then asked for more time to change their mind again when the waiter actually came round and took the order? Doesn't happen at home when you're at home, when the options are more simple; take it or leave it!
Also, if you give them a specific start time and leave them open for late reg up to 180 entrants then they start to blur into scheduled MTTs, which risks a drop off in recreationals, who want to sit and
go. Will they disappear to STTs, or cash games where they can be dealt in next hand?
We know they'd still be basically the same thing, 180s instead of "proper" MTTs, but will recreationals continue to appreciate the subtle differences?
As they are, the 180s still work quite well, so do we really want to risk breaking it again? We all remember the huge drop-off in games for a couple of weeks last May when Stars had weird buyins and different structures, and that volume only picked up again when it was returned to "normal". And yes, I know it was just after BF, which obviously didn't help, but the games died even more than the BF effect for that couple of weeks, until Stars revived them by abandoning most of the huge changes they had implemented.
However, no late reg would mean that some games won't make the 180 cap by the time the server determines they are to start, meaning there would be slightly more tournies running, with slightly fewer players in each; this means regs are having to play more games, and hence
pay more rake, to get access to the same amount of recreational money — I don't think we want that!
Quote:
... start the MTT when 120 out of 180 people register (have 6 out of 9 seats at each table filled)? Then hold open late registration for a couple levels or until the cap of 180 players is filled ...
... having late registration in general. One thing I really liked about On Demand was that when you logged in, you could jump into 4 mtts already and 4 more would be on the way. So if you wanted to 8 table some MTTs it would take 10 minutes ...
Confusing lobby again. Yes, FTP's On Demand was successful, but at small buyins, on a smaller site where their lobby had fewer possible games to choose from (and a better filter too imo). Will an On Demand-type availability work for all buyins, or will the bigger ones just never fill, so we pay more rake per recreational dollar that gets to the table?
Of course, I may be too pessimistic, and it could be that On Demand-type availability would be hugely successful on Stars too, but it is dangerous to assume that just because it worked there, it will work here too. Because of what happened to FTP there is a lot of ill-feeling towards them out there, amongst regs and recreationals alike; irrespective of what they actually did or didn't do, FTP nevertheless vanished from our computer screens with perhaps $100m of customer money amid accusations of being a Ponzi scheme, and anything which looks like it might be reworking of an idea from them could backfire on the next company to attempt to implement it.