guess you should try for 500s division then lol

but when fish lose at a 300 they want to win their money back so 500 isn't high enough so they go to 1ks

That always has been an issue with those inbetween uneven levels even at cash.. if you look at some of the past buyin structures when fish where ample, 100, 200, 400, 1k+ were fishfests.. and 600 had way less more reggy in comaprison. i doubt this is different in any gameformat really.

Why not just remove the 300 level and leave it 100/200/500/1K? (200/500 is the same gap than 100/250)

Oh, wait, emotionx doesn't belong to the 500s division and wants the fish that plays at 200 to play at his higher stake. I love these selfish proposals...

thats probably the most stupid conclusion I have read so far...

200$ regs would benefit from having a higher buy in, where all the action flows in the same stake. 300$ would have a lower buy in but action increased to compensate it. If ANYTHING, the good 200$ regs are the most benefited ones, since I can already play both 200$s and 300s fish, but they cannot. I dont think it will be a huge benefit to me but to the level structure in general... anyway things have been said dont want to keep on this topic, just wanted to know Baard's opinion.

Sure. Just wanted to know Baard's opinion lol. "Anyone +1?" means that you just wanted to know Baard's opinion. What a coincidence that there has been one +1 and several -1 and now you're just interested in Baard's opinion.

Oh, so the good $200 regulars can play $250 but they cannot play $300. That's interesting. And the fish would benefit from losing money at $250 instead of $200. Interesting. Very sound arguments.

If it will not be a huge benefit for you, please tell me why 100/250/500/1K is better than 100/200/500/1K. It seems the same to me and the only difference is that the latter requires less changes.

/out

Pokerstars, this doesn't seem likely and as a result is impacting your credibility in detecting bots.

Can you assure us that this has been properly investigated? Including watching the players involved while they play?

Hello all,

Will try to catch up on the issues in this thread, so here goes:

I would very much like to give you some good news on this, but it has not moved to the front of the line of development items, and I afraid it will not do so in the immediate future. The problem is, as always, a lot of worthwhile projects and limited bandwidth when it comes to getting all of them into production.

The promo was not extended to February, but may come back some time in the future. It was mainly meant as a compensation for the rake increase, but after the reversal of said increase, we felt that the main reason for keeping the promotion was no longer valid.

I am sure it is possible to argue for other buyin levels than we currently offer, but a few years back we decided to streamline our buyins across the whole Sit & Go offering. There are some exceptions, I know, but in generally this has been implemented as planned and seems to work well. We have not really had any requests to change these levels before now, so unless we see arguments that clearly show why a change is needed, we are going to leave the buyins as they are for now.

It’s worth noting that when we last changed Sit & go buy-ins we asked on this forum if people would prefer the current levels or 100/250/500/1k and the current levels were by far the more popular choice.

We do investigate every report made of potential cheating. I cannot discuss the details of any particular case in more detail.

Thanks,
Baard

It seems like Pokerstars is heavily underestimating how big this issue is. Sometimes it can take like 40-50min to get 3 tables up against one player. It happens regularly that people stop a battle, because they dont want to play only one table for a longer time. It is frustrating that Pokerstars is obviously not caring about something, which has been mentioned for years and by so many different players. Especially because it would even be profitable for Pokerstars, since more games would be running.

Yeah it's crazy. Seems obvious to anyone who has played husngs on Stars this feature would likely pay for itself in weeks at most.

Hello again,

Another installment of our Q & A:

We are very well aware of what an issue this is for those of you who really wants this feature, and I truly wish that I could wave my magic wand and give it to you today.

However, as has been mentioned before, priorities must be made, and in general, the development priorities tend to be given firstly to requirements imposed by regulators around the world and then secondly on the features that will affect the most players.

Over the past week, a daily average of under 5% of our players played at least one Heads-Up Sit & Go. From an earlier investigation, I know that less than 5% of those who play Heads-Up Sit & Gos ever play more than one HUSNG at a time. Multiply those two figures, and you will see that only a tiny fraction of our players will use the 'Add Table' button. It has to be said that the players who would use this feature constitutes a far bigger share than this when it comes to games played, but still this is a relatively small number of players.

We have a lot of improvements that we would like to make to the site and must make tough choices to prioritize some and leave others unaddressed.

Thanks,
Baard

Nitpicking perhaps, but I feel it must be pointed out just on the off-chance Stars management do not realize this - playing 2x tables vs the same opponent in a husng is far easier, and therefore very much more likely to happen, than playing 2 tables vs different people. Since this is not the case in other games, maybe it isn't obvious to those who don't play husng regularly.

So these figures, rather than suggesting that most husng players prefer not to play multiple tables at all, it may be the case they do not play multiple tables at once because getting another table with the same opponent is very difficult, and carries high risk to result in the worst-case scenario of playing two or more different opponents at the same time. They perhaps consider it not worth the risk to try and duplicate a profitable game, if the likely result is turning it in to two unprofitable games over and again.

edit: I'm very unlikely to use this feature myself if it were ever implemented, but I can imagine this may be a reason why so few would try to play multiple tables in the current environment. Also, at this point I have to imagine there's some architectural issue that makes it far larger a job than we laymen might imagine. Such is software engineering.

I got DOS attacked over a week ago along with many other players. I lost a few buy ins due to this and emailed stars to investigate the player under suspicion, ive been emailing stars every couple days to know whether the player under suspicion is guilty and whether i will be refunded for the buyins i lost due to the attacks but they never give info and always reply the investigation is still underway

Im wondering if we can have any updates on this

DC status vs Sitting Out status:

When we are in game and get disconnected, we get disconnected status. But if we are sitting in a lobby when it happens, we get sitting out status. The difference is obv huge in that with DC-status it is possible to fire up back up connection in time to not lose chips (1 min), but with sitting out status the whole buy in could be gone in that time.

I can understand it in MTTs and other formats with several players at the table, but in HU SNGs this is just brutal. Havent read the thread, so this is probably suggested before I would assume.

Please stars, let us have disconnected status so there is time to fire up the back up connection.

I had 2 disconnections yesterday and was able to fire up my backup connection in the same amount of time.
One time during a HUSNG game and I was able to fire up my backup connection without losing a chip
One time while I was sitting in the lobby and by the time my connection was up and running, I had < 100 chips
Pokerstars, please fix this.

+1

+2

+3

+4

+5

+6

+7

+8

+9