90 man ko turbo obv nuts
just replace regular speed with turbo buy in

Syncronized breaks for the 27mans please. Let them follow breaks from 45 and 180man.

I dont see how the introduction of rush turbos would only allow you to play 12 tables. If the response time and timebank aspects were kept the same as they are now then there wouldnt be any differences would there? I presume that clicking the quick fold button isnt conscription.

You mention the strategy of fish will change? How so? As far as I can imagine they will be all over the quick fold button and the amount of dead money left at the table will increase? I also dont see how your ROI will drop, its still going to be the same fields and if anything will attract more fish due to the instant nature of the game. Would zoom poker not create a bigger pond?

Im more than happy to be corrected and take an anti-zoom stance but you havent really explained how or why it will be so harmful to regs.

27-man turbos with sync breaks would be sick, yes please.

Worthy of a trial run at least...

wether or not they implement turbos, they should as a minimum add sync breaks for the regspeeds that already runs.

They are performing better than the $1 Regular speed, running a little less than once an hour on average, although that rate will change considerably at different times of day. Given the level of traffic, I don't think that they could stand another buy-in. However, it is early days so the volume may increase over time and we can look at it again.

Interesting idea about going for a slightly higher buy-in. That might attract more players but it could equally lose a few as well. For the moment I would prefer to give the tournament a little more time to become established so we can see if the level of traffic remains relatively constant.

We have discussed this as a possible option. However, even if we decided to add sync breaks to smaller field SNGs, such as 27-man and 18-man, we wouldn't do it until we have an "I'm Ready" button available. That is planned for the future but not in the short term.

There have been several posts about the idea of replacing the $35 180-man with a rebuy around $11. I realize that the higher buy-in rebuy would probably prove popular and I agree that an $11 rebuy and the $35 turbo would be in competition. However when a SNG runs reasonably well, such as the $35 180-man, it is extremely unlikely that we would remove it and replace it with a different format of tournament.

translation, 35 dollar tournaments produce more rake

A suggestion has been made in the thread to revise the payouts for 180-man SNGs, creating a more graduated structure. I've seen several posts supporting this idea. I would be interested to hear other opinions as well. Does anyone prefer the existing payout structure or have any issues with the proposal in principle?

I like the current payout structure and wouldn't want it changing.
If you believe that an $11r would be in competition with $35 then how about a $20r 180 instead of a $60 180. Basically instead of a $60 f/o 180 make it an equivalent rebuy 180 imo please

wow wow wow, I hate this logic, it's extremely sick.....don't fix it if it
ain't broke? Fish logic. Then why make any changes at all?
What are your parameters for a SNG running "reasonably well".

I don't think it runs reasonably well because you can't play
them exclusively as a format for even 8+ tables, you have to
mix. With 11Rs maybe this would change.

Maybe we have different definitions of "runs reasonably well",
yours is conflicted with stars' bottom line, probably
would have been better to say nothing because pokerstars
loves transparency and by saying this you just invite more questions.


Either be more honest and say something like "people will be discouraged
by a tournament 11+3, and we're not looking to rake rebuys because that's
not our style" or don't post your objectives at all.

I don't think anyone asking for an 11+R would even consider having it
in competition with 35. It's a given the 35 would be scrapped. You've
already explained to us how much of a bad idea it is to segregate the pool.

If it were up to me I would trial run the 11+Rs on a Sunday when
the traffic means it doesn't affect the 35s negatively, and if it's
overwhelmingly popular i'd replace the 35s with 11rs, if there
are problems forseeen then keep the 35s.
As for calculating rake, i'm sure you could be inventive and not
antagonise any customer while raking same as 35s.

For one, you can't really reference the impact of 11rs with any other
game because no rebuy SNG has been employed at midstakes at
the highest traffic poker site
Because of this, predictions can easily be way off.

+1

The thing is, theres HUGE difference in how long a 18man turbo takes and how long a regspeed 27man takes.

A 27man can take 2 hours, while 18man maybe takes a little over an hour. So i dont see how u can compare them. If u change 27mans to turbo it would be simirlar. But not in this case.

Sooo just make sync for 27man regspeed. Cant see how this can influence anything????

In my opinion an $11 rebuy 180 would run way more often than the current $35 180. Tons of recreational players would play the $11+ and simply wouldn't rebuy/add-on. In the end, lots of these types of players will end up rebuying/adding on occasionally anyways. Ultimately, it seems like an issue with decreased rake for ps but hopefully they will trial them and we'll see what happens from there.

+2

Yes please, it would be great if it changes!

I don't see how the proposed new structure would be bad in any way. Most regs make their money by winning or coming top 3 and most of the money remains in this place. If anything it might help overall ROI's because you get more when you bust earlier, which happens more often than when you win.

I feel like the current payout structure works well, but it could definitely be improved upon. That being said I'd rather no changes occured than a badly planned/thought out one.

Also, wouldn't like an $18r be perfect in size, if you're so worried about clashing with $35s? Regs would much prefer them because the downswongs would be way more manageable (300bi in $60s makes me puke) - and from a fishes perspective, $18 to win $2.5k would be pretty spectacular, isn't that what attracts fish to MTTs in the first place?

I think an $8 rebuy would be perfect, ABI would bridge the gap between 15s and 35s a bit being that everybody would be at around 24-30. And there def needs to be more 180 rebuys.

Also i like the payout structure, and is there anyway to stop new torneys that have just started playing during break? nothing worse than getting to break 30tabling then having 3 new ones start and not getting that valueable break time.

There problem with an 8r is that it clashes with the 8 f/o in terms of initial BI. I reckon that seeng as the 60s ran pretty well there should now be a 10r (filling the place of the 35s) and drop thr 35s in favour of a 50/60 thing

Some questions for Walmsley

1. Do rebuys clash more at their average buyin, or initial buyin?

2. What would 8 rebuys clash with? The ABI would be 24. You could make it 7.5 or 8.5 if you want it to be a bit further in either direction. I really think this level would work well and wouldn't clash with anything, lots of exclusively MTT/rebuy regs would play it. If it clashes with the base buyin too, you could always get rid of 8 freezeouts, possibly releasing a 5-8$ zoom freezeout. With an ABI of 24, this would probably help more people get a bankroll big enough to play the 35s and 60s as well.

3. How do you think 11rs will clash with 35s? I think a lot of MTT regs would play 11rs but wouldn't play 35s because of the relatively low attainable ROI. If anything people would play both.

4. JD Klinkz last suggestion of getting rid of 35s in favor of 10rs and adding 50s/60s to the main schedule is great IMO. 35s don't run very often at all, and 60s ran quite well on sunday. 10rs would have all the 35 regs, lots of fish, lots of small and mid mtt players, as well as exclusive 3r players. Pretty big player base

5. Can you at least trial one of these, and if not explain why.

This is a very under-looked idea. If this was a $1.01 + $0.10 for a $1.11 rebuy, the ABI will be in the $5 range (since players will be rebuying more at such small buyins).

The $2.50s run often enough that adding this level will not have THAT much of an effect on the frequency of games run. The only downside of less rake for Stars, but they can figure it out.

noone will be playing that many...

the 12 tables comment was an estimation of the equivalent # of games per session playing 180 mans versus 6 tabling rush based on an average game length of about half.

(6 tabling would be 12-15 games per hour on average assuming 25-30 minute average game length)

there were no regs playing more than 6 rush tables on tilt as far as i knew and i checked out most regs i had a decent sample on and 12 would be unthinkable (think 200 hands per minute)


from personal experience id say 4tabling rush is about as mentally "demanding" as 16-18 tabling 180s and you see a comparable # of hands per hour


just think of each table as pure decisionmaking, no downtime between hands. every time you make one decision, a new one is presented. it wont take many tables to cap out your mental cpu usage
the comments about the game evolving quickly is just based on what i witnessed first hand, which i expect to be repeated on an accelerated rate since rush/zoom regs already exist and proper strategy at various stages has been addressed

one year after zoom sngs are introduced the rois for the top handfull of zoom regs will be about 1.5x higher the roi for the top handfull of 180 players

with the zoom regs having at most 25% the volume in terms of games played and comparable volume in terms of hands and hours played

i dont know what else to say really, directing any portion of the fish populace to a game where i cant harvest their equity without playing 70% fewer games a day because of how demanding the format is is harmful to me.

once the games normalize a bit and arent filled with totally clueless regs/fish making constant mistakes learning the new format the roi will drop low enough where im better off going back to 180s and getting in tons more volume (but to find a % of my fish and badregs Who used to make me $ have migrated to a new format where i can no longer benefit from them)


zoom sngs are going to be a bad thing in the lr

Regs have been loading and sitting out every hand for the beginning of sessions.

If ones on your table the edge is cut

How about this:

Time bank say 180 secs. Game clock 5 seconds.