$15r

13.5 + 1.5

BYE

Would love more 90man turbo.

I think the reason this hasn't been implemented is because of the danger it would pose to some players. I think this button should only be availabe for the 3r 180 mans or you should be able to select what stakes you wish to auto rebuy for. Supposing a fish wins a ticket to a 109r or a 215r and inadvertantly rebuys once for his whole roll.

Im sure it would be simple to put some kind of control measure to stop this from happening though.

yes... ive said this a few times also, but make them turbo.

A $7 90-man rebuy is now available in the lobby.

I've seen a range of suggestions for buy-ins in the thread from $5 up to $11+. I'm going to err on the side of caution for this initial deployment, as the lower end of the range should result in higher liquidity. As a new tournament in a field size that isn't as popular as the 45-mans and 180-mans, getting it off the ground is important. Also, this is double the buy-in of the 180-man so it provides a good progression for players who prefer rebuys.

After this has been running for a few weeks we will review it.

voting against 90mans. voting for 5 to 11 rebuys for 180s. any buy in in between that amount. DO IT POKERSTARS DO IT

Sorry but this is so outrageously dumb.

$7r is great but it should be at 180 man and not 90.

I mean why are you all of a sudden putting a $7r 90 man when 90 man isn't even established as a proper and popular format. Like there's nowhere for people to move down or up to.

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!!!!!

Cool, I reckon it will flourish given time. That said, double the buy-in of the $3r 180 and half the field, going to be pretty much the same prize pool? People are going to rather spend $3 on their rebuys than $7 for the same outcome just for the sake of a little extra time playing. This is why I think when setting the buy-in levels it's more important to create different prize pools than the actual buy-in itself.

A $7r 90 man is way better than nothing, i agree would have been better if it was 180 man but I'm just happy we have this at least
And hopefully liquidity is good then in a few weeks they could make it so they scrap 7r and instead have a 5r and a 11r or something

Hmmm yeah a 7r 90 man is kind of random?? But definitely better than nothing and hopefully this will be noticed and traffic/volume will be decent.

For 6-max vs full ring, and apologies since I didn't super carefully read the posts as it's 4am - attainable edge is definitely bigger in 6m for deep stack and it's not close. You are forced to play more hands and pay blind/s more often. For shallower stacks, like turbos, it might not be as big of a deal since good players will probably find a bigger edge by playing more hands without paying blinds because of how profitable shoving ranges are vs. weaker players etc. It definitely is harder to multi-table, especially if you are playing full ring stuff too. If you have say 30 full ring and 5 6max which is a realistic example of what would happen, then it's probably okish and not that noticeable but if you were playing like say 30 6m instead of 30 full ring you would DEFINITELY notice a HUGE difference. Even if it's like say 30 vs. 25 or something. Not totally against it but in general would rather just have full ring.

And yeah been meaning to post for a while but a +1 for higher buy-ins in general and a higher rebuy would be cool. Think $11 is a pretty massive jump to start with tbh (even though 60s have been introduced on weekends and seem to be popular) and I think something like 7 is great. Again, as a 90 it's kinda random and I think recreational 180 regs would probably be less likely to play it but it's still a good start and hopefully a good sign for things to come.

This. Plus, please add the $1.65r so micro grinders have somewhere to go between 2.5/8 180s.

I agree with Starzz here. And without having the 7r 90mans on the Tourney > Regular or All tab its going to be hard for people to find. Plus it looks like some regs are unregging cuz its basically a 3r 180 but with a higher reg/fish ratio dont you think?



$1.50r, 3r and maybe a $8-10r would be a good contrast to the 8, 15, and 35$ 180 freezeouts IMO. I agree with chilin and JC here

Agree it's better than nothing, but I would much more rather like to see how often a $11re/180 (or 90m) would run if put in the tournament lobby. I don't see any reason for small/mid stakes MTT-players not to play it. Judging by the two first $7re/90s the prizepools are going to be around $1700-$1800, pretty much the same as a $3,5re/180. As some mentioned earlier, recreational players (and regs fwiw) would love to play a MTTSNG with > $1k for first, without having to play a high buy-in as $35/180s.

Not sure if you who only grind MTTSNGss share the same view, but as a MTT player who mixes in some MTTSNGs every now and then, a $8-$15re/180 (visible in the T-lobby) would be nuts.

Just to add in case it isn't obvious, the solution is not to add more levels of 90's around the $7r but to make it a 180.

Obviously adding more 90's would compromise both 45's and 180's.

I just hope you/players think more long term and realise having a stand alone $7r 90 man makes no sense either.

These are the relevant posts that led up to the decision to add the $7 90-man rebuy.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...8&postcount=65
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=166
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=258
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=337

I've read the reasoning but am failing to see the logic.

I just don't see what the huge downside was to trialing them as a 180 where they'd be just another cog in a well oiled machine as opposed to a random stand alone 90. If they worked then brilliant, if not then you'd be proven correct.

Thanks Walmsley, this is awesome.

your logic is wrong if you're worried about liquidity affecting a higher buyin rebuy 180 and not a 90man rebuy theyre drawing from almost the same player pool you arent gonna have new players signing up bc zomg theres 90 man rebuys.

I have to agree with some of the other posters here, I just don't think the liquidity issue is going to have as big of an effect as your leading on...

people are more likely to not play a 7+ 180 because it has rebuys, not because there are 180 players. Likewise, people won't stop playing 8/15/35 180s because a new $7-10 180 rebuy is introduced. If this logic were true, than you would lose a large percentage of those players anyways by introducing 7+ 90s.

I understand you have a lot more to think about than any one grinder on 2+2 in terms of liquidity, player base, etc... however I don't see any issue with trialing a $7 180 rebuy, much like you initiated today with the 7+ 90 mans.

I was very disappointed to see after following/posting in this thread for some time, that the first move in upping the rebuy offering was to implement a sng that is twice the buy-in, half the player pool and EXACTLY the same prizepool!

payout structure in 90mans should be changed imo

9 places paid, and make more % for first.
in 45mans first is 31%, in 180mans 30%, in 90mans it's 27.55%

when the $12/$60 90mans exsisted, they didnt get much traffic because reg's didnt played them because of payout structure. fish didnt reg'd too because they had few people reg'd. year ago one or two 12/90s ran a day, and a one or two 60/90s on sundays.

I think this is a good idea.

If possible, can you do something to draw attention to the games? Maybe put them in the lobby for a week or two, or put a banner on the top advertising the new game?

Thanks!

11r turbo 180s, 2r 2x turbo 180s pls

90 Mans a major fail. I BOYCOTT

180 mans rebuys will be wildly popular even though nobody wants to play 90 mans.