I guess I could see how that'd be the case, but just to give you the reason we feel that way is basically that it increases out ROI, and that WPN isn't using a standard type of payout % like Pokerstars, which generally is 10-15% depending on the exact number of entrants. Plus, I find it really dissapointing to mincash a tournament and breakeven or barely win any money. It also creates a a situation where the occasional recreational player will score big(ger) than they do now, and that's a good thing.

I realize that it's probably not going to change on WPN, but hopefully within a few months WTD can add in a few tournaments with a more steep payout structure to please those of us who want it. Obviously bigger things are happening right now - so I'm not gonna continue to bring it up for a while.

Just thought I'd explain it to you, since you said you didn't understand the complaints.

higher bounty tournaments would be nice

I would like to know from TD if this will be happening in the near future?

IS THE NETWORK DOWN?? WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON?

I can't login to ACR

Just a few posts up he said that when things are less hectic he'll look into some final table only tournaments. Personally I'd prefer a few that were "top heavy" or something like it but either or is basically fine with me. Whatever's gonna work best.

Either way, it's gonna be at least a while, considering that all of the other changes get priority.

the payout structures are fine!
you guys can't be so selfish and shortsighted anymore....its 2013....we MUST accept reductions in winrates/ROIs for the overall long-term health of the poker economy, particularly on smaller sites!

the smaller the fields, the more important it is to have flatter payouts; I'm sorry if you guys don't like that.
i'm a full-time MTT grinder and while I would certainly LOVE to have top-heavy payouts...I'm not so shortsighted anymore and understand that top heavy payouts will only serve to make the games tougher and tougher in the future. again on small sites WITH re-entrys....its even more important to have flatter payouts for the obvious reasons.

I get that, and I don't expect to get everything I want. I was just asking, then explaining why.

It's fine I love a lot of what WPN is doing, and I don't want to sound like I'm complaining. I am happy at the prospect of even just a few top heavy tournaments, even knowing that IF it's going to happen it's still a while away, and that most tournaments are going to stay as is.

You can't equate the value someone puts on their personal time as being selfishness or short sighted.

I dont need to bold out that flatter payouts are way more boring to play because everybody realizes that.

All your talk about reduced win rates and overall long term health of a poker economy reeks of shanetalk.

( sorry for the derail winningtd )

it is certainly selfish and shortsighted when you fail to realize the long term repercussions of top heavier payouts in SMALL FIELDS WITH UNLIMITED RE-ENTRYS.

sure maybe some people are only in this for the short term, but I'm pretty sure most people who play seriously(ie. for a living) would agree that sacrificing some edge/ROI is best if it helps keep the games healthy for longer.

You need to look at this in the way of the better regs will win more tournaments over the so called 'fish' ;-) So if you have a top heavier pay out the more recreational players will have less chance of making some money. Which means in the long run these guys will go broke and get fed up of not cashing. So in the long run it will be regs playing regs. If this happens poker will soon die. I know as my time playing poker for a living that if i could only play against regs every day i would soon get bored and i know i could no longer do this for a job. This is the bigger picture imo. Maybe im wrong.

plo8 on this site pls

This is the problem with bolding in comments. I read the bolding part and should then have to read more carefully the fine print under it. My bad in that regard.

Small fields in a re-entry is not what i was referring to.

I hope the schedule is created and released by next week. I'm always looking forward to any type of online series on any US site.

Take your time responding to this one, you've clearly got bigger problems happening now with the server problems and fallout from that, but I just gotta give this advice.

Having hyper-turbo satellites with a 10% fee is unreasonable. Industry standard, from what I can tell, is 2%. I don't mind 5%, especially on tournaments that start you off with 25K in chips... but starting with 600, having 3 minute levels and paying a 10% fee is ridiculous, especially because it's a satellite and the winners effectively get double raked.

It's something to think about, you have no idea how many times I wanted to play a satellite but didn't because the fee for it being a hyper was way, way, way too high. And I do honestly feel like more people would play the hyper satellites if the fee was lowered. As it is now, when I get home at a little past 9 and want to try to satellite into the 10K, I just pass it up and either play something smaller or don't play at all.

Like right now I'd 100% register for the Hyper Turbo if it was 3+.10, but I just can't justify it at 3+.30.

Anything you could do to provide more modestly priced tournaments would go over big. The $50 and $100 gtd. tournaments are very cool.

anyway you can make a 10 dollar double or nothing turbo and bring back the 15 dollar double or nothing turbo and make a 20 dollar double or nothing turbo, those are the most popular sngs that run and should make the traffic go up

AGREE 100%

I'll admit I still play these hyper-satellites because I seem to do well in them due to the soft/gambling nature of the field....but Boney526 brings up very valid points and the biggest issue here is that these are hyper-SATELLITES and as Boney526 pointed out, we are effectively paying rake twice.

Please consider this carefully as hyper-satellites are crucial for hitting those big guarantees in your larger-buy in tournaments.....I agree that lowering the rake to more reasonable percentage and maybe increasing starting stacks would go a long way to increasing their popularity and helping you guys crush the GTDs on the sunday 50k, nightly 10k, etc etc.

Thanks

I will make sure all hyper sats are 5%. I also agree with you.

If they are going to be 5%, can you increase the stack size to 1K-2K? IDK I just think that's more reasonable.

I'll probably play sometimes for the 10K GTD anyway, but that'd go a long way into getting me to play them way more often once I know the server issues are fixed (and if I'm thinking that way, I'm sure others are as well?)

Either way thanks, I hated seeing hyper-turbos for events I wanted to play in, but couldn't justify the fees.

Yep you nailed it. We're already seeing the effects of Merge doing the unlimited re-entry thing. The fish are going broke there. I'm not sure there's any way unlimited re-entry is sustainable long-term, but flatter payouts can slow the bleeding.

I'm a fan of re-entrys on small sites....but I think having unlimited re-entrys are a problem.

the people most likely to fire more than 2-3 bullets are the players with the biggest bankrolls...and the biggest edges.

look at the Seminole HardRock 10mill guarantee....we heard of plenty of people who fired 3+ bullets into the event problem is that they are all TOP pros with MASSIVE edges on the field...hence they found it profitable to fire off so many bullets.

I think a limit on the number of re-entrys into certain field sizes would be an acceptable compromise....like for example once the field is over 100 players you can only fire 1 or 2 re-entries. what you guys think?

at first my suggestion may seem counter intuitive as we just discussed how the problem with re-entrys is compounded by having SMALL fields....but i think the smaller guarantees(and smaller fields) naturally limit the number of bullets that top players are willing to fire. the fields are never that big on these sites but I think honestly the unlimited re-entrys causes the most damage in tournaments like the sunday 50k, nightly 10k, etc

While this may benefit you personally, no..just no. It doesnt make sense to do this from a player or website perspective.

lmao my suggestion(s) would only hurt my bottom line in the short term....however the long term sustainability of the games should be more important to any serious poker player who plans to stick around for more than a year or so.

games are only getting tougher and tougher regardless....which means the difference in skill level between winning players and recreational players is only growing....yet there is no longer a constant supply of fresh blood per say to keep things in check.

just ask live players about WPT Events and events like the SHRO....the re-entry format completely favors the PROFESSIONAL PLAYER.

your typical recreational player might throw $215 once a month to take a shot at the sunday 50k or something on WPN and would rarely re-enter unless they were feeling a bit frisky.
your typical professional player will play the $215 Sunday 50k *every weekend* and will likely re-enter at least once if they bust out early....players with huge edges can easily justify firing as many bullets as they can afford(which by no coincidence is a LOT).

you don't see the problem here?

That's interesting, because the way I saw it was that even though unlimited re-entries are good for the top players, they also help the website with their GTD tournaments, and create bigger prize pools (which I always assumed was good for recreational players)

Now I'm thinking about it, I see that there is a problem, but I'm not sure that the negatives of unlimited re-entries outweigh the many positives....