I’m currently reviewing the number of single table Sit & Gos of each type that are open for registration at the same time on PokerStars.com. A 2+2 poster has suggested some changes, particularly at high stakes, and I’d like to hear the opinion of the community at large before making final decisions.

There are three different ways to limit the number of Sit & Gos of each type and buy-in that are open for registration at the same time, one of which is still under development:

1. A fixed number of Sit & Gos are open for registration. When a Sit & Go starts another is opened for registration, maintaining the fixed number. Usually this fixed number is 1, although Heads-up Hyper NL Holdem is currently set to 2 and both 6-max and 9-max Hyper NL Holdem are set to 4.
2. An unlimited number of Sit & Gos may be open for registration. A single Sit & Go is initially deployed. When the first player registers for a Sit & Go, a new Sit & Go of the same type is opened for registration
3. PLANNED FOR DEVELOPMENT: A combination of the above. A single Sit & Go is initially deployed. When the first player registers for a Sit & Go, a new Sit & Go of the same type is opened for registration – but only if the total remains within a fixed number.

The difference between #1 and #3 is that in #3 there can be fewer than the maximum number of Sit & Gos available for registration. At the moment, there will always be four $7 9-max hyper turbos listed in the lobby even if nobody is registered for any of them. Using method #3, only one empty $7 9-max hyper turbo would be listed.

Are there any specific single table Sit & Gos that you believe are currently deployed using the wrong method or would benefit from having a particular fixed number using method #1? If so, what changes would you like to see made, and why?

Thanks in advance for your input.

Yes, 6max hypers should continue to use the method that is currently used. If the method #3 is used, then it will be harder for regulars to register conveniently. Also the games go off quick enough such that it is not important to restrict players choices -- this may not be true in other games.

any inside info about higher buyin 9max and 6max hypers?

on topic- 4 sngs open for registrations is good for hypers

If its not broke, dont fix it.

The 3.50 6-maxs have an unlimited amount available, when the 1st person regs a new empty one opens. Why would you ever want to consider limiting the lobby to only having 4 available?

Number 2 FTW

oh and more hyper levels.. I'm a reg in the 7's 6max taking shots in the 30's, its ridiculous both how hard it is to move up and how stressful it is to take shots at a buyin 4 times your normal size.

Comparable to having 10NL cash and removing anything so that the next level is 50NL

Edit: not number two sry, i meant 1

Oh wow the sit n go manager

Nice to meet you.

I may have this wrong but are you saying you want to limit single table's to a fixed number for registering in the lobby? If so I say yes, but please do it across the bored to mtt sng's as well up to maybe 45 man's. Anything higher like the 90 man's and maybe 180 man's their would not be much of a point.

If you ever have a event like what is going on with the ding dong cash players in regards to sit n go's I throw my name in to be a "rep".


Oh ya from post above me I would like to add to that, your buy in's are way to spread out at the lower levels, PLEASE bring back the 5.50 level and a level in between the 7's and 15's. ( or just gid rid of em all together and revert back to the buy in's you had.)

1! Use tableninja to load SNGs, keep the lobby clean.

Number two for all husngs imo

Number two for all husngs

I play about 2000 midstakes 6 max turbos a month.

Limiting the number of lobbies open seems like a great idea, option 3 looks best.

What sometimes happens now is one player will open up eg 20 lobbies at a buyin level and time of day when it would take maybe 90 minutes or more for all of those games to start; this situation seems bad for regs, recreational players and stars.

For recreational players, it's at best confusing to see so many lobbies to choose from, consequence of this is that multiple players sit at the "wrong" lobby (one with only one regd player) rather than the next game about to start, get bored waiting for their game to start and leave. At worst maybe it discourages them from playing altogether (this guy who's sat at 20 tables must be good, he can play so many games at once, he can afford 20 buyins, hes a bot etc).

For regs, if I see someone who I really don't want to play is clearly committed to every game that runs at a certain buyin for the next 2+ hours I might go do something else for a bit. If I'm unaware of their intentions, I prob play them if there's fish in the game/play higher or lower buyins to avoid them/rakeback pro it. Obv losing the ability to know how long other players intend to play is a disadvantage but I'd take this if it encouraged more weaker regs to play more often.

I'm guilty of mass registering for games, however I don't mind losing this option as I monitor the lobbies anyway and unregister a fair bit, the guys that mass register and don't table select it's not an issue either as they can set up table ninja to manage ongoing registrations.

Not sure what a good fixed maximum of open lobbies would be, somewhere between 4-6 might be ok for the 30s, higher maximums for games that pop more frequently would make sense.

Awesome Walmsley, glad you guys have allocated time/resources to this issue.

The biggest problem IMO is when one person registers for 5, 10, 20+, etc. of one game type/buyin and clutters up the lobby for anyone (i.e. rec. players) with an unfiltered lobby view, making it a bit intimidating/unattractive for them to join games, and even difficult for high volume players with filters that include most/all game types.

I mean, for example at the $200 level it can go eight 50/50s, then two 6-max games, another seven 50/50's, a 9-max, four more 50/50s and one more 6-max and 9-max down at the bottom, etc. Most games having only 1-3 players registered.

I'm happy with #1, but think #3 is the best idea. Also, if the chosen solution can keep all of the same game types "grouped" together, vs. the situation now where they can get mixed up (i.e. example above) based upon when the first person registers (for different SNG types at same buyin).

Hi, I think the current system for Hypers works well, since games start off so fast anyway that having 4 open lobbies constantly isn't a problem. If the number would shrink, it would be a lot harder to get into the games since so many people reg for these, and a lot harder to table select.

I don't think I see anything wrong with more lobbies opening up if requested as long as it doesn't get up to a ridiculous number like more than 8 or something, but I don't see the big upside of that either.

+1 to more BI levels for the hypers though, don't see why they're not there yet. ROIs are lower so fish get to play more before they go busto, and they are immensly popular.

Right now at the $200 level unfiltered goes:

One 50/50 (1 reg)
One 9-max reg speed (1 reg)
One 6-max reg speed (1 reg)
One 9-man knockout (1 reg)
Seven 50/50's (1-2 reg.)
One 9-max Turbo (1 reg.)
Two 50/50's (1 reg)
Two 6-max Turbos (2 reg)
One 50/50 (1 reg)
Two 6-max Turbos (2 reg)
Two 50/50's (2 reg)
Two 6-max Turbos (0-2 reg)
Two 50/50's (0-1 reg)

Pretty confusing, and pretty standard during peak hours. At this buyin, something where there's 1-2 of each game type open maximum, and the games are always grouped together would be >>> the current situation.

Obviously for buyins where more games go off quickly there can be a couple more open, the data Stars has should help determine what's optimal for each buyin level.

Definitely want it so people with slow internet connections can still register for a SNG before it disappears (i.e. $30 hypers there's no problem with this since 4 are open for registration and they only go off ~ several per minute).

Number 3 is basically the equivalent of 'King of the Hill' type lobby for Cash games?
Regs would be forced to play each other in order to get any game going so it would
encourage action in this way, this change obviously favours some players over others,

I think 2 is out simply because the lobby should not be cluttered with thirty 50/50
games with 1/10, nobody wants to feel like they're joining a table with a bot,
maybe 3-4 for 9/18mans and 10 for 50/50s?

So yeah I'd prefer 3/KOTH, I know stars wants to keep the lobby cleaner and make
it better to enjoy for all players so this would accomplish it

As soon as one person registers, a new one opens up, up until the maximum is reached for that game/buyin. Pretty much just a cleaner-looking version of #1.