Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerStars Baard
I am thinking have those up for most of the week, but to take them down when equivalent sats are running for other targets. This way, they won't steal the 'thunder' of targets that might need more satellite support. I will probably not be able to organize that schedule immediately, so the satellites you mention will probably run for the majority of the first week, regardless.
Thanks,
Baard
There are 2 sides:
1) Use 6max hyper-sats to get recs into MTTs, collect low rake
2) Let 6max hyper-sats be played by all, optimise the schedule, collect lots of rake
Side 1:
How many more recs do you think you can seriously get into MTTs by changing the 6m hyper-sat options? And more importantly why are you concerned about getting more recs into MTTs?
Say you get 5 more players into a $1k, that's 5*50=$250 extra rake. There are two $1ks each week, so $500/week, or $25,000/year. This is the biggest MTT of the week. The s500 would be $6,250/year extra. Two $320s each week, might make $8,333/year more. Say 20 $215s each week makes you $78k/year.
We're looking at
$117k extra in MTT rake. And can you really get 5 more players for every MTT just by increasing the 'thunder' factor for the sats? I'm not sure.
Anyway, lets look at what you will take from regs if you leave the hyper-sats as they are:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawg91
Side 2:
Pokerstars raked $924,591.82 from these players + $363,000 from slayerv1fan himself, less rakeback of 45% leaves
$708,525.50 profit for Pokerstars. This image shows
only games played by slayerv1fan, which is a relatively small % of total games played across all stakes, so the total Pokerstars make is far higher.
You are in control of games that are making millions in rake each year for Pokerstars, yet you are looking to remove these games and stop this income only to get a handful more recs into each MTT. Why?