bet you never thought anyone would say that

someone else got this problem? if u make table minimum size, one of your costum bet buttons disapperars

std. size


minimum size

Yeah that was always that way when the table Gets too small.

fwiw the 200k is max three entries. Is that changed?

Hi all,

Just a couple of comments right now, but I'm paying attention to this thread and expect there will be plenty of feedback starting next week when things get moving again.

1. Guarantees: Yep, they're pretty small at re-launch. However, we're not going to be shy about raising them once we get a decent idea of what kind of traffic we'll be dealing with. We've found that players like it a lot more when guarantees keep going up rather than guessing too high and being forced to lower them.

2. The big Sunday $216 as an MET: It's been a long time so it's not easy to remember, but this tournament was an MET for a good number of months in 2011. Not only that, but it allowed 6 entries. We've cut that down to 3 since we agree that 6 was probably too many.

3. METs in general: We're cutting the max number of entries in all of our METs in half. If they used to allow 4, they now allow 2. If they used to allow 6, they now allow 3. There will be a couple of exceptions that still allow 4 entries (like the Kitchen Sink and a new tournament with a built-in promotion coming in the next couple of months) but in general, METs have been toned down across the board.

Having said that, you'd likely be surprised at how popular they are. We've done a few surveys now (not on a forum, but across a wide selection of our players) and find opinion quite evenly split towards METs. So we're not getting rid of them, but hopefully you'll find the lowering of the max entries a decent compromise.

Out of curiosity, what do you all think about the new multi-chance tournaments? What other new tournament types would you like to see?

Multi-chance tournies just seem like a fancy way of saying 1r or 2r without the addons

I think ppl across the board are OK with METs but the main point being raised is not to make the flagship sunday major a MET

Hey Shyam,

Appreciate you being candid with us.

The problem with surveying players about METs is that chances are they don't understand the long term ramifications of consistently placing them in the schedule. Sure, recreational players like big prize pools and they're not unaware about their place in the poker economy, but they'd certainly be turned off by the speed at which METs gives money to top tier players. I would argue that it is your job to look out for the poker economy's best interest when it comes to something as clearly detrimental as METs.

That being said, I understand that it is important for your business to be unique and that FTP is the only site running METs. I think the big Sunday should be 2 max entries (if you insist on having your major be a MET--which I get at the start) and that METs should either be at the highest and lowest buyins as a 'specialty' option.

Multi-chance is a good idea, it'd be awesome to have a 6-max PLO major that is multi-chance ($215 PLO 6-max 30k?).

I'm also not sure where to put this or how to expand on it, but it has and will always irk me that the rake is higher on FTP. I have no idea what I'm paying extra for.

Good luck with the relaunch, I'm sure you're crazy busy this week.

Yes, MET are fine!! The thing is, they should not be included in the majority of tournaments, and especially not all the main sunday tourneys. Something like ~30% of mtts could me MET, and maybe more so during down times so the people who playing non-peak hours can fill up a session.

I think that is b.s that the rake is higher and the rakeback is lower, these kind of business decisions are what concern me when it comes to pokerstars owning the vast majority of the online poker market

fwiw I like this idea of double and triple chance tournaments I guess they will be similar to the 2r1a on pokerstars without the addon.http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/poker/t...-triple-chance

Concerning METS I like them being decreased by 2 but I think they are really hard to handle on daily schedules. I always thought this format was perfect for special events such as the ftops and mini ftops.

1. Bring rake in line with Stars, keeping it higher is ludicrous.

2. The flagship Sunday Major absolutely cannot be a MET... Most of the reason why has been mentioned but as for your point about running them before and them being popular; well, it often takes a while for everyone to see the greater effect of something new - when they came in I'm sure most regs just thought like I did "hof, a way to get more money in play"... Having had a bunch of time to dwell on it we're hopefully a little wiser... Not saying get rid of METs altogether because they definitely have their place in the schedule just don't give them centre stage...

3. Don't be shy in not being shy about raising guarantees

4. The brawl at 10:30 ET is way too early, I know I'm not alone in late regging the warmup on stars as my first tourney of a Monday, and that's usually at or just before 12:00 ET ----> make it 11:30ET or later etc

5. Multi-chance is fine for a rando tourney here and there, especially good for PLO

these posts always gripe me a lot.

Pokerstars, nor any other poker site is a non-profit company or charity. they exist to make money, you willfully choose to use their product and pay the costs of doing so.

Don't bitch that a company is making money off a legitimate enterprise and you are willingly paying for the product and services they provide.

If it's that much of a problem to you, don't use their product.

If you truly expect Stars or any other site to skyrocket gtds just so you can feel justified to use their product, please gfy and gtfo, not necessarily in that order.

You want the super tuesday to have a 1mm gtd every week? just because you think you deserve it?

Please, start a poker site, give everyone everything they ask for everytime they ask for it and put gigantic gtds on all your tournaments, see how far that gets you.

anyone else got (panic) cashouts still in the "limbo" ?
i cant see the transfer history but im fairly confident my balance is missing ~1k which i "cashed out" (not rly, it never got thru) around bf, ive heard similar stories of other german regs..

whats the std procedure here? (i assume they will sort it all out obv)

I've got same thing, a transfer that was 'processing' and a different transfer that was 'approved' and neither showed up in the subsequent account. I'm going to wait until the history comes back to make sure, then shoot them an email I guess? :\

+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

#2

have exactly the same problem (i´m also a german reg)

~4000 $ missing

nevertheless at least the part of my bankroll, which i didn´t cashed out is completely available

+1

i'm really pleased to see that they've halved the maximum number of entries at least, i think this will help a lot, and is surely a step in the right direction.

I'd be very surprised.

Link to results of said surveys?

+ ****ing 1 to all of this

also, some new avatars with the relaunch are due

Oh yeah, I accepted the new terms of agreement without reading them. Was there anything in there I should know about? :s

I guess I'm alone in liking METs probably because I ran well in them. For all those who are saying no to METs, do you feel the same way about Multi Entry live tournaments? I bet not. My theory is because the live METs came about at a time when buy-ins were going down and therefore they were embraced as a way for prizepools to stay the same and for pros to have more chance to recoup travel expenses.

So if they continue with METs imo just move your avg buyin down. It might make a small dent in everyone's ego but you and your bankroll will be happier, and the fish will be happy with bigger prizepools at the given buyins

That said I understand not wanting THE Sunday major to stay the same buyin + MET. They should make a new MET sunday major, probably $55 and it would be a hit.