*** OFFICIAL PokerStars MTTSNG Suggestion Thread ***
03-02-2012
, 06:39 AM
03-02-2012
, 09:24 AM
I'm going to play devil's advocate here, so I'm sorry for another slightly tl;dr post but...
Could, and should, this reasoning be used instead as an argument that 45man turbos should lose synch breaks?
Regular speed 9mans don't get synch breaks, and they can easily last as long as a turbo 45man. If we're going to use expected overall run time as the major criterion for deciding on whether to have breaks, regspeed 9mans should probably be on a par with turbo 45s, and certainly ahead of turbo 18mans, which are done inside 65 minutes tops, and in fact usually within the hour, and don't need a break at all.
After all, we're not talking about a large field MTT which could go on for many hours. 45s are usually done and dusted in under an hour and a half even with the breaks. In the current 45man structure the blinds go up to 3k/6k after only 1hr 20mins of actual playing time, which means only ~11bb in play. Almost all 45s will be finished by this level and certainly the next one, 4k/8k. But if it's a game which starts between about xx:30 and xx:55 (approx 40% of all 45mans) it will probably have had two synch breaks by the time it finishes. Does a game which only needs about 75-85 minutes of actual playing really warrant that?
Of course regs want breaks, but the losing players are the ones we should be wanting to satisfy the most, not regs, because they are the people who provide the money so that this can all happen. What's the preference of those losing players in, say, 45mans? How many of the net contributors are also like the winning regs, and playing a lot of tables, or at least playing on a very frequent basis, and how many are occasional visitors and playing just the one table? If mainly the latter, how many are irritated or frustrated by registering for a SNG only to see it go on an "unnecessary" break after only a few minutes, and are dissuaded from playing more often because of this "glitch"?
For any SNG where it is decided that breaks are desirable, a similar argument could be used for removing the synchronicity of breaks and instead letting each SNG could go on break individually after each completed hour of playing time; currently we see some SNGs having their first break perhaps as early as immediately after the very first hand.
If grinders of the regular speed 9mans can manage sessions which are several hours long without a break, why can't turbo 45man players? And if that deters some regs from mixing turbo 45s (without breaks) and MTTs (with breaks) then surely that'll be a good thing for winning players because some of your games will be less reggy, even if they are also slightly less frequent.
I'd say that the current synch break system is already slightly self contradictory anyway, in that SNGs which fill between xx:55 and xx:00 start playing instead of going straight onto break; we've all seen the whinges from regs who've wandered away for their five minute break to come back to no time bank in a SNG they registered before xx:55.
If there was a solid argument last year for rationalising the range of buyin sizes then surely there's a prima facie case for doing the same with tournament breaks, by expected finish time — I certainly think that there is a case for the lower buyins, although I can a reason for handling the nosebleeds differently and on a case-by-case basis, because of the smaller player pool and liquidity.
Send out targeted surveys to the losing recreationals, and ask them what they want. Don't ask a bunch of regs who 40-table for hours on end, because of course they'd prefer breaks. Let's face it, if regs had everything their own way they'd just want the "fish money" credited directly to their account without actually having to go to the tedious effort of actually playing cards.
As I said, I know this is a bit of a devil's advocate post, because if I were grinding then obviously I'd prefer breaks, but there's always two sides to a debate. I occasionally think that the regs get their own way too often when sometimes it would actually be better for all in the long run if the other side at least got a look in, and I really think that the synchronicity of breaks is one issue where regs are the worst people to ask, because they are so overwhelmingly biased, and for such transparent and self-serving reasons too.
TT
Regular speed 9mans don't get synch breaks, and they can easily last as long as a turbo 45man. If we're going to use expected overall run time as the major criterion for deciding on whether to have breaks, regspeed 9mans should probably be on a par with turbo 45s, and certainly ahead of turbo 18mans, which are done inside 65 minutes tops, and in fact usually within the hour, and don't need a break at all.
After all, we're not talking about a large field MTT which could go on for many hours. 45s are usually done and dusted in under an hour and a half even with the breaks. In the current 45man structure the blinds go up to 3k/6k after only 1hr 20mins of actual playing time, which means only ~11bb in play. Almost all 45s will be finished by this level and certainly the next one, 4k/8k. But if it's a game which starts between about xx:30 and xx:55 (approx 40% of all 45mans) it will probably have had two synch breaks by the time it finishes. Does a game which only needs about 75-85 minutes of actual playing really warrant that?
Of course regs want breaks, but the losing players are the ones we should be wanting to satisfy the most, not regs, because they are the people who provide the money so that this can all happen. What's the preference of those losing players in, say, 45mans? How many of the net contributors are also like the winning regs, and playing a lot of tables, or at least playing on a very frequent basis, and how many are occasional visitors and playing just the one table? If mainly the latter, how many are irritated or frustrated by registering for a SNG only to see it go on an "unnecessary" break after only a few minutes, and are dissuaded from playing more often because of this "glitch"?
For any SNG where it is decided that breaks are desirable, a similar argument could be used for removing the synchronicity of breaks and instead letting each SNG could go on break individually after each completed hour of playing time; currently we see some SNGs having their first break perhaps as early as immediately after the very first hand.
If grinders of the regular speed 9mans can manage sessions which are several hours long without a break, why can't turbo 45man players? And if that deters some regs from mixing turbo 45s (without breaks) and MTTs (with breaks) then surely that'll be a good thing for winning players because some of your games will be less reggy, even if they are also slightly less frequent.
I'd say that the current synch break system is already slightly self contradictory anyway, in that SNGs which fill between xx:55 and xx:00 start playing instead of going straight onto break; we've all seen the whinges from regs who've wandered away for their five minute break to come back to no time bank in a SNG they registered before xx:55.
If there was a solid argument last year for rationalising the range of buyin sizes then surely there's a prima facie case for doing the same with tournament breaks, by expected finish time — I certainly think that there is a case for the lower buyins, although I can a reason for handling the nosebleeds differently and on a case-by-case basis, because of the smaller player pool and liquidity.
Send out targeted surveys to the losing recreationals, and ask them what they want. Don't ask a bunch of regs who 40-table for hours on end, because of course they'd prefer breaks. Let's face it, if regs had everything their own way they'd just want the "fish money" credited directly to their account without actually having to go to the tedious effort of actually playing cards.
As I said, I know this is a bit of a devil's advocate post, because if I were grinding then obviously I'd prefer breaks, but there's always two sides to a debate. I occasionally think that the regs get their own way too often when sometimes it would actually be better for all in the long run if the other side at least got a look in, and I really think that the synchronicity of breaks is one issue where regs are the worst people to ask, because they are so overwhelmingly biased, and for such transparent and self-serving reasons too.
TT
03-02-2012
, 09:36 AM
Quote:
We are considering various options for changes to leaderboards for Sit & Gos. Some of those potential options include a separate leaderboard for 45-180s, re-structuring Battle of the Planets or perhaps even a completely new approach to promoting Sit & Gos.
As has been noted in the thread, a survey seeking feedback on leaderboards and Battle of the Planets has been sent out to a representative group of players. If feedback from the survey indicates that Battle of the Planets isn’t a major factor for players when deciding what to play, we would consider changing to a simpler, cut-down version and diverting funds to other SNG promotions instead.
If anyone has any promotional ideas for Sit & Gos, by all means suggest them in this thread. Bear in mind that one of the major reasons for any promotion is to encourage new players to play Sit & Gos, although they have to make business sense as well. So while “Free money for all SNG players!” would no doubt boost the player pool, we probably wouldn’t go for that
Promotions should aim to attract new players rather than just moving a player from one game to another. Also consider the possibility of promotional ideas that might not benefit you immediately, but would indirectly benefit you in the longer term by boosting the player pool and making games more attractive.
As has been noted in the thread, a survey seeking feedback on leaderboards and Battle of the Planets has been sent out to a representative group of players. If feedback from the survey indicates that Battle of the Planets isn’t a major factor for players when deciding what to play, we would consider changing to a simpler, cut-down version and diverting funds to other SNG promotions instead.
If anyone has any promotional ideas for Sit & Gos, by all means suggest them in this thread. Bear in mind that one of the major reasons for any promotion is to encourage new players to play Sit & Gos, although they have to make business sense as well. So while “Free money for all SNG players!” would no doubt boost the player pool, we probably wouldn’t go for that
Promotions should aim to attract new players rather than just moving a player from one game to another. Also consider the possibility of promotional ideas that might not benefit you immediately, but would indirectly benefit you in the longer term by boosting the player pool and making games more attractive.
This will attract satellite players, who collect the tickets and use to play tournys and for recreational players to have a shot at qualifying for a higher tourny buyin than they usually would not play. (again i go back to full tilt who did this and it worked very well)
03-02-2012
, 02:46 PM
03-02-2012
, 06:13 PM