3-max, 4-max, 5-max lol why not just 6-max or 9-max? I just wonder what is the fun to play 3-max or 4-max tournaments? But maybe it's only me who does not like them.

P.S.: 8-max is a weird format too imho. 9-max is the best.

feels like all of these gimmick format ideas etc imply the idea that "normal freezeout poker is not fun anymore and recs dont like it." Put big guarantees on freezeout tourneys with big $ up top and that will bolster traffic and interest. imo progs. should be a novelty thing with a few everyday (not 50% of the tourneys on the site). organically, so much of the fun in poker comes from "having a perceived edge/advantage", which seems non-existant in so many of these formats. basically just pit games. anyways, what a ridiculous request I'm making here

Most recs tend to be too loose, play too many hands. The more shorthanded you play, the wider range of hands you can play. Recs who play too wide get punished less for their too loose play. Recs who know to loosen up short handed enjoy the ability to play more hands (I conisder myself a winning rec, and if I would always play a 4max or 6max over an 8max or 9max). However, if you do have an edge on your table, you will win more the more short handed the table is. Fewer people to battle for the bad player's chips. Light 3bets, light 4bets, creative post flop play all becomes more possible short handed. Anyone who considers themselves a winning player but asks for 9max is a total nit who refuses to adapt to an all around more fun and profitable format.

Let's make all MTTs 3-max then. Also would be nice to convert all cash games into 3-max - good for winning players, very profitable and a lot of fun!

Assuming the last comment is sarcastic, I'm not saying all poker has to be shorthanded. And I particularly recognize the difference between HU, 3max, 4max, and 6max. If all tournaments had to be the same, I'd personally vote for 6max. I don't know the history of how we arrived at 9max (I'd be curious if anyone who does could chime in) but live poker is in the business of cramming as many people into a table, including up to 10max, to maximize limited physical resources. Online does not have that problem. For that reason, I believe at a minimum that all games should be not more than 8max. Other than for tradition, to mix things up, and satisfy those few who prefer full ring, I see no reason to spread full ring. If I designed a poker website, I'd do an even split of 6max and 8max with occasional 3max and 4max.

dont like them a lot too and really like fast friday hope it does not die

Grunch. Not a reg itt but curious why the guaranteed prizepools went down all over?

not 100% sure but probably partof the changes for the summer

Luke, regarding all-in or fold tourneys,

if you want a more extensive public beta test of them, please consider adding them at lower play money stakes than 1M and advertising them better, with a clearer explanation of the rules to the general public.

(I'd be able to play if the BI were 250K or less - the cashier button that buys play chips isn't even working for me in Russia under Win 7 for some reason, and I likely won't buy them anyway. I don't mind being a tester for free, but I don't like to pay for it.)

The 1M chip Friday Frenzy saw 84 entries and ran for 19 minutes and can be considered a relative success given the lack of advertising, however, the 10M Friday Freakout failed to become a good data point for you as it gathered merely 8 entries by 5 people and only lasted for 2 minutes

But why though? Has this happened every summer? The cynic in me is that they have to take the $$ from somehow to pay off the ransonware lol.

+1

I d snap take a only 3max environment over fullring nit nonsense for sure. Since that won't happen alt least limit the nit nonsense stuff and alllw for a more fun environment as mentioned above

from what luke or other rep said volume is lower, that was the reason for rb on sunday million for example, doesnt know for sure just what i read here

Yes they reduce gtd's every summer. Lots of people at WSOP and many players believe it or not actually get out of the house from time to time esp when it's warm

may or may not have something to do with the biggest live tournament of the year taking place this weekend

about zoom sats, yea i realize that you need bigger number of players to start as zoom
but guess what
if for ex - 80$+40$+2$(122$) PKO ZOOM 6max satellite for Thursday Thrill 18+ tickets guaranteed at 17:00 CET with 3k starting chips and 3/4/5 min lvl i am prety sure that same people that play 82 hiper at 18:00 will play this plus at least 1/3 of people that play 215BB ate 16:30 and 44bb at 17h
- or add one 12+ tickets for ex in wednesday somewhere 00:00-02:00 CET time slot

the idea and success of variable lvl 6max PKO ZOOM SATS (starting as hiper->going to turbo) imo will be for this reasons
- you add them at the start(15:00-17:00 CET) or the the end (00:00-02:00 CET) of the most peak time grinders sesion
- they are fast and finish fast
- when they are PKO even if you dont win seat you can end up making profit + as added bonus PKO is killng colusion and soft playing

when someone register to plays this kind of sat, it knows that
a) will finish in max 2,5-3hours
b) if he win ticket he will also win some cash too from KOs that he can use to play some other MTTs (and basicly freeroling the target MTT)
c) even if he dont win ticket he can win some $$$ from KOs(cut his buy in cost) and use them to play other MTTs

and only reason you are offering as con is that ZOOM need larger minimum starting players, oh well, w/e

*X*X*X*

ALSO ANOTHER ISSUE I WANT TO TALK ABOUT

WHY IN PKO PRIZE FOR #1 IS NOT=PRIZE FOR #2???
and HU match when 2 left to be just for the bounties??? the way it is is very often that #1 when will win will get more the 2x$$$ then #2 will get , including bounties,
HU bounties are quite bigish and very very often the winer gets more $$ from bonunies then the pay jump from #2=>#1 is

I doubt that Stars will agree make a satellite where seats would constitute less than 90% of the prize pool. The excuse is that as many seats as possible should be generated. It disregards the fact that the extremely flat payout structure makes the bubble play so tight and slow that it discourages people from entering sats.

Making the final table of a tournament is a huge achievement, if 9th paid the same as 10th it'd be ridiculous and a slap in the face to anyone getting 9th. Ask anyone who got 6th in a 6max tournament whether they like this payout structure. Making the final 2 tables is also a good achievement and should - in my opinion - be accompanied by a payjump. Making the final X tables is the same way, though as X becomes larger it obviously becomes less important. Also, this is a smaller point, but 9 is nicely divisible in 3 so you can have 10-12, 13-15 and 16-18 payjumps, instead of 17-14 into 13-10 into payjump every next spot. I don't know, I guess it's partly taste, I just don't see why it ever changed other than a far too widely implemented fix for the 6max tournies that didn't get 7handed final tables and had a 4-handed and 3-handed table bubble.

It doesn't fix the problem either, if you're medium-shortstack and the next payjump is at 5 instead of 6 people, you're still at a similar big disadvantage with 7 left at the 3handed table being ICM-handcuffed. And even then, it's never unfair as long as seating is random, just like it's not unfair if you lose JJ to AK. I'm in favor of paying X tables, and where it's really problematic (even numbered final tables) you add a player to the FT.

+1

Well said!

'Official' EPT final tables used to be 8-handed, though players would gather at a single table when there were 9 of them left. The 9th place finisher would get less fame than the final 8.

This is a great idea

I estimate the chance of this change happening as low because, in June 2015, TeamTrousers proposed to lower the payjump between the 1st and 2nd places in 90-man turbo PKO SNGs in the MTTSNG suggestion thread, then Pokerstars Baard went AWOL from the thread and ignored that post when he returned. Those SNGs are still paying much more to the winner than to the runner-up, even though the 6-36-man super-KO hypers do have almost equal prizes for the 1st and 2nd places.

@luke yea of course i realize that min entries for ZOOM is higher then regular MTT but is thats the only con argument that u have???

if you put this kind of sat at start of peak grind 16h-18h CET or at the end of it 00h-02h CET 80$+40$+2$(122$) PKO ZOOM 6max satellite for Thursday Thrill 18(12)+ tickets guaranteed 3k starting stack 3/4/5 min variable lvl
i am very sure that it will be very popular

for ex if you put 80$+40$+2$(122$) PKO ZOOM 6max satellite for Thursday Thrill 18+ tickets guaranteed 3k starting stack 3/4/5 min variable lvl
at 16h-18h CET time slot
- at least 1/3 of players that play big 44$ at 16:00hCET, 215$BB @16:30CET,44$BB @17:00CET, hot 33$ at 16:15hCET, 82$ hiper @18;15h CET will play it because
- is fast, will end in max 2-3h
- even if player dont win ticket, he can win some money back from bounties and play other MTTS
- when player will win ticket he will also win some extra $$$ from bounties (he will min get his sat buy in back) and basically freeroling target MTT, plus he will have $$$ to play other MTTs/or cash around target MTT (which also means he will generate more rake, and we all know that more rake is better for all)

X X X

ALSO ANOTHER ISSUE I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS

WHY IN PKOS #1 PRIZE MONEY IT IS NOT= #2 PRIZE MONEY ???
Why dont you make #1=#2 in PKO and let players HU play just for the bounties??? the way it is often #1 is getting more then 2x #2 prize money (when we consider bounties in)

can you stop ****ing posting like that you give me eye cancer every single time

Is there a reason why the 'no language other than English spoken at tbls' disappeared and presumably not enforced anymore? Ppl can now speak whatever they want?