Quote:
Originally Posted by SantaCruz
That's what I was thinking too. I'm still not clear on how much the player actually puts in the pot every hand.
5 chip small blind, 10 chip big blind, 1 chip ante.
Equivalent to 5 cent small blind, 10 cent big blind, 1 cent ante.
(Each chip is worth 1 cent. Start with 1000 chips = $10.)
Scale up accordingly for future levels.
The leaderboard reward is generous ($1k entry), but extremely high variance. I'd think a $250/$150/$100/$75/$50, then $25 for 10 more places structure would make players far happier, despite being less total money - and substantially increase the number of players that register (that's the goal, isn't it?). You're forcing players to play a tourney 100x the stakes of what they were just playing. It's the same problem with the beast/SnC "freerolls" into the cage, half the players are going to stall as much as possible.
Makes the Cage tourney pretty much unplayable, and then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that the only people who play are the ones who satellite in/would rather have the $1k than play, so the stalling cycle continues.
With that said, it's still an interesting experiment for a tourney type, might fair better at low stakes than high stakes. 1 hour seems slightly short though considering rake paid, maybe 2 hours would be the happy middle ground? Tough to say.
Last edited by CarbonIsTheNutLow; 01-14-2016 at 09:27 PM.