Thats some GREEDY ****

Trollolol

Ban together 90% of the regs and Stars will give you more than a pity message.

Stars is not your friend, they are your employer.

lol

BAN

Where to begin on this......

english pls

something that i've brought up and discussed some since edges are shrinking, is to try to run more satellites to these highstakes turbos to supply more players to the games. a lot of other high stakes games get a big boost via must-play satellites, so it could help HS turbos too.

the sats would be popular as turbo formats are very popular, and the regs wouldnt even be frying the fish too fast in the target turbo tournament (at least not fast fast as the 109q, super tuesday, etc)

i dont expect stars to ever lower rake really, so hopefully we can find some other solutions

also to be kind of fair, the structure of turbos has gotten much better over the last 3 years which is another way to combat the problem of shrinking edges

I think Stars should start implementing prize + seat payouts at select final tables. For example, a $2 freezeout could pay cash prizes plus a must-play seat to a higher stake tournament, say 10x the original buy-in. In theory this is good for Stars because they are guaranteed to generate more rake, it's good for fish because they get the thrill of a big sweat, and it's good for regs because there will be more random fish in the games. Stars can implement this kind of prize structure in any small stakes turbo.


I also think payout structures need to be reviewed. I know everyone complains about reduced payouts for the final table and stuff but you really can't have your cake and eat it too; steeper payouts mean more variance, more risk, and a lower ROI if you aren't truly rolled for the stakes you're playing. Very minor payout tweaks, like an extension in payouts and leveling the top prizes a bit so the mean prize isn't such a deviation from the top prize, could make a big difference in the risk of ruin for many players. Your ROI could drop a little, but your swings wouldn't be nearly as bad and the "long run" wouldn't be quite as long.

I think the general problem is that the current pay-out structures do not have enough decent windfalls. In most tourneys, nothing short of the top 4 places is particularly big. I am not advocating drastically top-heavy structures but I do think Stars should review their policy of incrementally bumping up the prizes. Giving enough people a min-cash is fine, but there's no need to take money away from the final two tables by bumping that min-cash up in infinitesimal increments every time the field is reduced by one or two tables. This results in even making the last 2 tables of 2,000+ fields feel like a crushing disappointment because the payouts are utterly negligible compared to the top prizes.

The daily something $11 before it become the Big 11 had a fun payout structure, where it paid a bit over twice buy in for a min cash and then didn't increase for ages.

This is a good idea.

bump for gags to see again to bring up at players meeting.

oh don't worry, never forgot about this thread. ty tho

Interesting idea. Making some tournies sudo-satelittes. Have seen this idea in practice in MTTs on Betsafe. Kinda like it

Here's the graph PokerStars doesn't want you to see.

My sample is now up to 59,908 games played. If you recall my earlier posts, you'll remember that this player group consists of players who were in the top 50 of PocketFives at the end of 2011. I created the sample on January 21, 2012 and decided to only look at the results on or after from that date. Because many players have their names blocked on SharkScope, it's down to 29 players. However, I did not remove any players who have their stats shown -- in other words, the sample is as unbiased as possible.

These results are filtered to scheduled turbo or hyper-turbo MTTs with a $36+ buyin; January 21, 2012 to the present; FPP and rebuy MTTs excluded (that way we don't have any arguments over how SharkScope calculated rebuys).



For some reason, I can't get the graph or ROI numbers to show up. However, it's easy to figure out all the relevant numbers from what is shown.

59,908 games played x $98.97 average buyin = $5,925,095 in buyins.

Total cashes = $6,178,350.

Therefore, total profit = $249,255. You'll notice this is less than the total rake, which equals $389,508.

That works out to an aggregate 4.2% ROI for some of the best players on PokerStars.

Take that, haters.

pretty gross, but why filter out the ones over 1k entrants?

Because I never claimed those were becoming close to unbeatable. They're still raked the same, if not higher, as the super tough $215 turbos. But it would be silly of me to suggest that good regs can't achieve high ROI's in the Hot 44 or Hot 16.50.

To prevent from someone 1-shoting the TCOOP Main for example to change the average numbers from the whole player group.

TT: I think you are doing an awesome job by posting these numbers.

I have, however, a few remarks:

1. Hyper turbos should be treated differently than turbos because they are faster and they have a much lower rake. BTW It would be interesting to know if daily hypers such as the 82 or 51 are worth playing even though they have a small rake.

2. I think the main problems are the 215, 109 55 2x and 109 2x (the 2x MTTs are indeed more hypers than turbos). Also, the 109 cubed has a decent rake (9 for 300) even though it is very tough field.

3, I think the main problem is not Stars (which logically has no interest in lowering the rake) but the actual players who everyday play and think they can beat the field. In my case, I confess I still play the daily 215 and 109 but almost always skip the 55 2x and 109 2x, which rake is absurd. For some reason, its hard for lots of good and clever players to excersise better game selection (as long as these tourneys have decent fields I doubt Stars will do anything).

I'm sure you could find 50 terrible players that have a higher roi in turbos.

The rake for 55-2x and 109-2x is lower than the daily 215 and 109...

maybe not in relation to the hyper-style speed of the game.

edit - nvm

And this is the precise reason why there are so many turbos. This keeps the money in more peoples pockets so they can play more tourneys. "Winning" players will have to play more tourneys to make x amount of dollars every month/year. This results in more rake paid to Stars. "Losing players" who may or may not ever deposit again on Stars now lose more slowly with the increase in turbos and therefore play more tourneys (more rake) before they end up bust.

For both player segments Stars wins.


TT-thx very much for the info and please keep it coming.