good point, although it really depends on the timebank. ppl can't put in stack sizes and ranges in a few seconds. Also if they use up their timebank to do that in one hand they won't have time to do it in another.

still something to consider when adding time tho

You can enter stacks and get nash ranges in under 15 seconds 2-3 and maybe even 4 handed. So it is a concern.

+1

Yeah I dont see the problem either. If you dont know if the play is correct or not, then do the math on the side after you played.

And if you play 40+ tables then maybe the downside to that is that you cant think thru about the harder decisions when you play. But you made a choice to play 40+ tables so deal with it....

Feels like some people just want to get feed with a silver spoon

Edit: Im aware that my post earlier in this thread about regging for 10 sitngos at the same time backfires with my last point .

eh?

Hello all,
Some more issues to reply to:
We appreciate that there might be room for improvement here, and we will be looking at it in the future. However, there is no quick fix that we can implement immediately, so we are going to have to wait until there are development resources available.

My immediate thoughts is that we can use the solution that is in place for our ring game where we give less time if a player is first to act preflop and more time if he is facing a raise etc. This would mean less time to develop a solution and consistency across tournaments and ring games.

When I started playing online poker about 12 years ago, this was the standard on the sites that first offered Sit&Go tournaments. However, PokerStars have always used timed levels and to change this would require some significant development. I will start looking into what would be required, but if we decide to try this out it will not be any time soon, unfortunately.

I don't think I have said that there will be no change to the game offering this year. For the most part, we are open to making changes if there are good reasons for doing so and it will not adversely affect a lot of players.

As for this specific suggestion, I have stated before that I am concerned it will cannibalize other games that are popular among a significant number of players, so we are not going to deploy these tournaments at the moment.

Thanks,
Baard

'you are concerned it will'

so u have complete authority over data, demand and other opinions.

cool thread.

Was my suggestion on how to go about surveys comletely awful or was it just skipped over? Also as meca said, I do not get how if the demand is there for sure to an extent but it is rarely getting looked into. I do not want to say people on stars end are not doing there job (aka finding out what is actually demanded and which a small % of people are demanding in relation to the whole), but, it really seems like they are not.

Hello all,

Time to look at those issues that have been raised since my last post.

We understand that there are many different types of players and that different methods of gathering feedback are appropriate for different player types. Our conversations in this thread are aimed at getting feedback from a specific subset of those players of players. We do spend time and effort getting feedback from other players as well, but you are probably not aware of those efforts. This is appropriate, as we are engaging here to get your feedback, not to submit to an audit of all company activities.

Getting feedback from players through the client might be a good idea, but so far we have decided not to do it since it might take the players focus off the games that they are playing. Having said that, if we can find ways of doing it without causing too much of a distraction, we may change our position on this in the future.

As for not deploying 18 player Hypers, we have explained the reasoning for this decision on more than one occasion. Some of you don't like those reasons, which is fine, but in the end we have to make decisions based on what we think is the best for us as a company and for the player base as a whole.

There are many tournaments that we offer today that are in the lobby as a direct result of suggestions made by players in this forum, so I don't agree that we are not listening. At the same time, I think players need to be realistic and not expect that we will implement all suggestions that are made.

I will be off on a two week vacation tomorrow, so in that period I will not be posting anything in the thread. I expect to get back to you around September 20th, give or take a few days. If an urgent issue arises, please PM PokerStars Steve.

Thanks
Baard

another vacation from eating lobsters and not listening to reason. when is twoplustwo gonna charge pokerstars for this pr thread instead of cloaking it as a suggestions thread?

lol

hello,

i am interested what are the thoughts of other players and of pokerstars to an implemented dealmaking system for sngs.

+: reduce variance, more volume is possible when average tournament duration is shorter,

-: maybe subliminal collusion because you want to reach itm with someone who deals with you, it needs a bit time to make a deal but it should be very short when 2 regs with no edges against each other deal with the suggested numbers

thats a very complicated collusion ring idea.

I like the chopping heads up especially for 500-2k players but as stated collusion (I don't play that high fwiw) so if doesn't benefit me if they include it but would b nice

i'm against a chopping feature

Chopping feature for hu sng's and no other ones.

The main benefit of chop feature would be recs who want to chop playing more passive 3h.

And if taking into account with whom Id rather end up HU is collusion then theres a lot of guys that need to be banned.

chopping feature was discussed a few pages back.
chop is good for regs who play non-exploitive vs each other. more games/hr, lowers variance.

I don't see chopping as high priority for PS to implement/pursue. Perhaps if MTTs had chops (which is on the table sometime in the future), then SNGs could have chops automatically.

I see no reason for any good reg to chop though / no point to the chop feature. HU is part of the game and you can have quite a substantial edge in it (hence the reason people play HUSNGs). "More games" doesn't really apply, if you calculate your average edge in a random HU hand as opposed to a random hand at 10/20 blinds, it's probably that your HU game is contributing more $dollar "win" (above baseline/breakeven) to your win rate.

This would be true if you agreed to chop with every player, it would be silly to chop with someone who you feel you have a big edge on. However there are plenty of regs who are going to be pretty close to even with each other. I know there are a couple of regs that I shove blind with when HU as a high variance chop however this doesn't affect my play previous to HU. I'm not the only one that does this.

good to know Thrash

why arent there any courchevel h/l s&gs?

Why are there no 6max hyper turbo sats (500 chip ones) to the hot 55 and hot 75? They exist for all the bigs and the hot 22 and hot 33, why not the 55/75?

Besides the sats to the bigs and the majors/flagship stuff etc, theres sats to really random **** like the 109^4 12k, 55r turbo big ante (just small field mid-hsmtts that dont get much attn)

I believe there is micro limits PL turbo 6max ones but even in micros it impossible to get them start, no one know rules for that game.

+1. As someone who regularly wants to play mtts that my BI cap wont allow, this is a priority.

cmon guys, all these years and you dont know that sats (even 6handed ones) arent part of sng family, your suggestion should be posted somewhere in mtt forums