The one thing I would be worried about is that people who satellite into the main satellite might not had been interested in going if they knew they had to cover expenses (there are people coming into the 82€ sats for as little as 1.65€), also if they cash for 300€ they can play several more satellites where they can try and win a full package instead. I think I like the current system better but I could be convinced that this is better, its an interesting idea.

As somebody who plays steps and could not really justify going to a live event if I had a seat only, I prefer the current system. For me there is too big a chance somebody has a seat and cannot attend, which is of no use. It would lead to players being disappointed to finish 2nd, if they chose to register at all!

I also like that the structure is quite flat using the excess cash, so whilst only one package can be won, the top 6-9 can be ITM on occasion. I think it makes the whole thing a lot less daunting for recs like me.

2014 thread maybe?

I can see what you're saying, but you can't just stay away when you win a seat, there are plenty of seat only satellites that get a lot of recreational players as well.

I'd pretty much have to stay away for some of them, and it would suck!

Let's say it's in Vienna (expensive) and I enter for a package game, yet fall short and win a seat....

To pay expenses to get there and play the event would be highly speculative if coming from my own bankroll. I'd need to find like €700 or so...

With a package, I can busto day 1 or 2 and enjoy the city before returning. There's a huge difference.

Package + seat only-satellite would effectively combine bad parts from both. So no thanks.

Personally I would like to see MUCH more seat + cash-satellites on Stars. Making EPT-satellites look like Seat + 1,5k$ would make them far more tempting than satellites with packages. It could also be made that such satellites are made for one or more side-events (PLO8/NLO8, anyone?).

I simply don't want to play for packages that has so ridiculously overcosted hotels included, especially when you consider what a joke is PokerStars security concerns about them. On the other hand I wouldn't like to play seat only either, because of the costs that inevitably comes from travelling (though they are far more tempting than package-satellites).

would just lead to repeats

Any chance you could offer a better range of target sats to ANZPT sydney

I see that a $320 deep hyper turbo has recently been deployed which looks good, but the $82 2r1a is really unappealing for the average grinder taking a shot to play a live event, please make some freezeout sats to the main event that are reg speed no rebuys.

You need to realise that people satting into a 2rebuy1addon are almost dead money vs the handful of regs that grind them and have enough $ to take all the rebuys/addons, hence even for a semi decent player its not worthwhile satting in if they cant afford to rebuy or add on.

But something has to be done about their payout structures

I mean, when it's best to fold AA from any position on the bubble whenever someone at the table has me covered, but if I'm the chipleader, I can't reraise the hell out of the table because recreationals make incorrect calls and sometimes strip me of the chip lead, benefiting neither themselves nor me but the rest of the field ICM-wise, and when I have to observe many or all of the 16 or so remaining tables and abuse the timebank to make an opponent at another table make their move first, like in bughouse chess, it's not normal poker anymore.

It's even a bigger problem in Omaha where equities run closer.

Unlike iPoker with its Sunday overlays, Pokerstars almost always have their guarantees met, often by 1.5 times or more, and there's no need to generate that many non-convertible (because of the target tourney already running) seats (in fact, far not all of them are genuine new seats because many players are already registered in the target tourney and their duplicate seats become T-money anyway).

What I'd love is something like Fifty50: half the prize pool (or 70% or whatever is appropriate) being converted to seats, and the rest being distributed as T-money proportionally to the stack sizes at the moment of the bubble burst, just to encourage looser play on the bubble instead of the usual boredom and stalling; or maybe an extra seat in a bigger tournament awarded to the one who's leading in chips at the moment of the bubble burst.

Oh, and why aren't deadline turbos paused during synchronised breaks? They're not SnGs after all, and played mainly not by SnG players, who're used to the absence of synchronised breaks in their games, but by MTT players, who're used to their presence.

^^ No, please.

Yea, when you can't jam as a chipleader because fish call too wide, change the structure stars, pretty tough to adjust to that.

Yes, I'm a fish, and I prefer not getting bored to adjusting and earning easy money The thing is, this way you'll stop getting the likes of me into your games soon

There was a reason for changing DONs to Fifty50s some time ago, wasn't there?

Nah Fish will always play sats Because they like playing above their bankroll
And even they know that when you got your seat locked up you just probably just fold a little more
Because the bottom line is not to win all the chips

Folding preflop nuts defies the spirit of poker, and so should never be encouraged by a poker site.

Fortunately it's not on you to decide what the "spirit of poker" is. There is clearly a demand for satellites, both from regulars and recreational players, so if it offends your idea of poker just not playing it would be your best bet.

That had to do with collusion and has nothing to do with the arguments that you speak of.

and i foolishly believed the spirit of poker was to make profitable decisions while opponents made mistakes




however i would be intrigued by what wrinkles would be created moving just one seat from a 20+ seat bubble to make payouts 2,1,1,1,1,... instead of 1,1,1,1,1....

id have to think a s***ton more mistakes would be made by recs and badregs making massively -ev moves trying to "chip up" for a chance at an extra seat (which in turn benefits everyone not screwing up)


im jsut thinking out loud tho, i dont support a hybrid satelite be introduced as stars is way to flakey to be trusted with making a good decision after recieving even a small bit of support for a poor and significant change

Right, that's from a point of view of a reg who's read Sklansky. However, in the eyes of a recreational player it's more about making profit from guessing opponents' hole cards right and making them lose by guessing yours wrong. That component is missing when optimal ranges turn into either pushing any two cards or folding any two.

Televised poker doesn't give an impression that the 'real' poker is about folding one's way to the victory, rather, it emphasises loose or aggressive acts, and that's what a common person seeks when logging onto a poker site, and that's why VPIPs of recreationals are so big.

I'd prefer capitalising rather on someone of the Laliberte type who understands that fun and action have to be paid for, than someone who overestimates the proficiency and doesn't understand intricacies that tell to fold any two basing purely on stack sizes.

Also, to make profitable decisions and capitalise on other's mistakes, we don't need to play poker. We play it because it's more intriguing and challenging to us than other jobs or businesses.

Anyway, I didn't ask to remove the current format, just reminded that there's always room for creativity and testing, to make everyone's experience not worse and someone's a bit better, in our case - to have more hands dealt a minute and more action going on during any phase, which is casuals are looking for too, than when everyone stalls and abuses the timebank to make shortstacks post bigger blinds and avoid posting too many of them themselves. Just test new formats from time to time and see if they gain interest.

To clarify, I meant not a 2, 1, 1, ... payout, but something way more top-heavy. A satellite with 50 seats guaranteed doesn't have to award 90 on a regular basis, otherwise why don't you advertise it as 80 gtd from the very start, or add most of the money that flows in after the guarantee is met into a cash prize pool distributed according to stack sizes?

In a Fifty50 format, it's already correct to go all-in with an average stack on the bubble having a 67/33 edge.

Sorry for stepping in, I certainly have more interesting game types to play for profit. If everyone else fine with these satellites, continue them on.

id expect nearly unanimous oposition from posters itt to a switch toward fifty-50 sat variant

maybe some would find it more intuitive/profitable/enjoyable if it were implemented, but most likely wouldnt ever prefer the swtich and to risk the liquidity in an existing format thats been around forever on a whim seems far too risky

stars would also lose rake of the target tournament seats that get caniballized to form the other portion of the prize pool and theres not much vocal deman for a new format, so id say its pretty close to nil theyd be trialed in the next few years

I don't think many, if any people play satellites because they want to play loose exciting poker. Mostly it is to either win a seat to a bigger more exciting tournament or to get $T so I think your argument is pretty invalid.

+1 to this. The reason a rec is playing a sat is because he's too conservative to buy in for the target MTT. The pro is doing it to grind out T dollars.

I'd like to see a turbo $15 36man 6-max shootout that pays 2 seats to SM and awards cash from 3rd to 6th. It was pretty popular back in the day on FTP when there was traffic.

Oh, don't make me start a rant about the harm caused by the existence of T-money (and especially the permission to transfer it) to the tournament and especially staking economy (meaning that less money is pumped into tourneys by those stakers who have enough money but not enough skill to play there themselves)... In which live satellites is there an option to qualify and not play in the target event?! Aren't they meant to pump up the number of entries to the main events?

The only poster itt whose opinion I'll listen to is of course BryanS-PS himself, he knows much more about the business than any player outside the staff.

One more 'crazy' idea I want to be considered is introducing rebuy/addon tickets, analogous to entry tickets but with the fee subtracted, to encourage players to make more rebuys and addons in main events. Then satellite payouts could be more diverse, with extra rebuy tickets given to the top finishers.

The running time of such satellites wouldn't increase that much because the bubble phase would end faster (the average stack at the moment of its burst would be bigger), freeing up time for the 'in the money' phase. Actually, it would be better to seat qualifiers in the target tournament immediately when the bubble bursts, and continue play for the rebuy tickets; in case someone wins an entry, busts out from the target event and then wins a rebuy ticket in the satellite, they should be seated again in the target event as an exception.

An argument can be made that this way Pokerstars will collect less in fees from qualifiers, but the third 'crazy idea' is that, I guess, recreationals don't appreciate that much that rebuys and the addon are a bit cheaper than the entry, and charging an equal but lower fee from initial buy-ins, rebuys and addons (something like $26+1 for a $27+R tournament, or whatever is needed to collect the same total amount of fees from the field) would actually allow to increase the scope of tournament tickets and maybe discourage some pro players from making as many rebuys as possible (as if fees matter to SN-SNE so much in MTTs, lol). That's already implemented in re-entry and multi-entry tournaments, but fees there are a bit too high, should be less than in freezeouts just to encourage playing in the former.

Feel free to voice tons of hate, dear pros, I'll have my ears plugged anyway.

Then why are u posting? Just PM the Stars rep and get your answers.

This forum is filled with people that disagree on topics/issues. That's the whole point of a forum. If we all felt the same way then there'd be no reason to discuss anything. Plenty of people itt for example I've disagreed with but I am grateful for their opinion as it can help me expand my own views.

If the only person you say you will listen to is Bryan PS why the **** would anyone bother reading your ******ed post