$30 might be too much for you. It is not too much for the average recreational player. The avg rec is someone with a job and disposable income to have fun with. If the average rec can only afford $11 and lower than poker will disappear quickly.

Just out of curiosity if anyone can get the hh for tourney #6245570 I would love to see it. I may be wrong but that maybe the tourney where all of this stems from.

95% of people who deposit money onto a poker site only deposit $20 according to Pokerstars.

So, I'm not sure why you think a bunch of tournaments $30 and up are appealing to the masses when it's a fact they're only willing to risk $20 at a time. Especially, with the economy being worse now than it was pre-Black Friday. Mind you...$30 is the MINIMUM buy in amount being discussed here. It goes up far more than that with the other options in the $10K GTD range on the site.

Me thinks you have no clue what you're talking about....

171k represents their daily NLH tournament schedule. every tournament I counted today, they run everyday with all very little change in gtds.

I'll admit my perspective on Sundays was off and WPN might very well have the edge on that day alone

And pokerstars serves countries where $20 is a lot of money. Maybe it's a lot of money to you, I don't know. But for most people in the us $20 is not a lot of money and if you live here and only have an extra $20 you shouldn't even consider playing poker, you should get a better job.

The average has always been $20, bro. Even before Black Friday.

The average deposit stayed the same. The rate at which the deposits were lost increased. Black Friday messed up their micro-stakes MTT's schedule and caused players to change their playing habits. This caused them to lose money at a faster rate.

When I added things up it was only between 3-9 or something like that, I can't remember exactly, but I didn't look at anything early or late. But the way wpn changes things each day, Tuesday - Thursday are much larger than Saturday. On Tuesday alone they have a 30k, a 40k, the 10k is 20k, - those 3 right there practically double the number from today.

Yea, but the buy ins to all of them are a ripoff. It's not about what you can win. It's about how much you have to risk to win it. The average person (even a losing fish) has enough common sense to see it's a better investment to play in 10 tournaments for the price of the 2 tournaments on Tues and Thurs.

So...

No, they are buy ins that you can't afford. Plenty of other people can which is why they never overlay. Play the games you can afford and if wpn doesn't offer anything appealing to you in that buy in range than play somewhere that does.

Indeed. Ignition.

Thank you for proving my point. WPN should put you in charge of marketing.

''Go to other sites."

Do you not see how absolutely ******ed what you're saying is from a business standpoint? Not to mention, how ******ed it is from a business standpoint for yourself as a poker player. Why the hell wouldn't YOU want $10K $11 buy ins on the site? Do you not want more options and more opportunities to win money?

That mindset has cost this company millions, but hey...it's not my money.

Back to the Nun Talk.

if I worked for the site, my attitude towards you would certainly be go somewhere else. In business 90% of your headaches come from 10% of customers who do next to nothing for your bottom line. They can either be distracted by you, who can't afford to lose $30, or continue to grow by providing a schedule that appeals to people with disposable income.

They don't offer what you want. That's life. Why waste time complaining about it? Why not just give your business to the company that you feel does more to appeal to you? you must realize that wpn is not going to change their business model because some dude on the Internet with barely any disposable income says they should.

I didn't lock this thread and don't want to overrule what WPN may have chosen to do in their own forum, so I know you won't be able to directly reply to this post - feel free to either PM me or post in the Zoo chat thread if you want to discuss further.

My point is simply that zero tolerance isn't always the best policy. If you have some recreational players that break rules that would be obvious to most, but perhaps not to them, it may be best to go with a different consequence than an outright and immediate ban. Having allowance for some nuance is never a bad idea IMO.

But I completely understand where you're coming from with the disdain you're showing for cheaters in general, and I don't blame you.