I'd expect 36-man 6max hypers to be popular

This. The Sunday Mil sat versions are really popular.

+1

Im not sure it would have that much of an effect. Personally I would still play as much volume on Tilt as before and ill actually play more volume on tilt when they put the damn hotkeys.. aside from that, it would be interesting to see if the rush recs on tilt would migrate to zoom stars. I really dont see why they would decide to do that. Maybe im wrong tho. Thats why stars should test it and see. If it kills the Rush on demand then forget the zoom sngs and put more zoom mtts.

I think its a matter of time before more zoom is implemented into the site. Like it or not its really popular.

zoom zoom

i agree, i think 36 man hypers would be very popular.

Please don't remove any more time to act on hands. I think the best way to fix the slow players is to limit the amount of MTTs they can load. There are some really slow regs out there like shen. Ive ghosted a few tables at the end of my sessions, and when theres more than 5-6 regs at the table, they only get in about 1 level per orbit, its pretty sad.

Which of these solutions is in stars best interest?

thats a fair point, less time to act of course, but then ill have to cut down on the games i register for, along with other regs.

honestly i think the best thing to do is keep the time the same, and if a recreational player gets bored, they can load another game

Bring us a danish licens for fulltilt ffs

Don't think Stars will even dare risk Zoom SnG's, at any decent buy-in level anyway. I mean if they totally shat themselves at the idea of a higher buy-in rebuy 180 because of the threat on overall liquidity then you think they'd risk even worse with Zoom? They would lose a ton in rake. All those playing >10 tables could never get even close to that multi tabling Zoom, in fact I doubt anyone could reach the maximum ROI potential of Zoom poker playing more than 4-6 tables tops (to obviously make full use of the quick fold feature).

As for this ****, you're answering ONE whiney fish about players taking long to act? lol. Leave it well alone. You guys are seriously worse than that prick Zuckerberg constantly trying to fix what ain't bust!

I'd be fine with a cap on the number of tournaments a player can play simultaneously, the idiots who constantly use their timebanks before folding preflop at 40 tables are costing the more sensible regs money by reducing the number of orbits per blind level as well as seriously pissing off the fish. Such a cap should of course take into account the average time to act of each individual player, as many regs are quite capable of mass-tabling without inconveniencing the rest of the player base while others are obviously playing too many.

I'd much rather see individually tailored limits on # of tables than any universal solution such as reducing time to act or speeding up blind structures.

breaks for 18man sngs maybe?

don't touch timebank, play more tables and stop whine

+1

well said!

+1

It's a valid point, but again, Pokerstars isn't going to cap tables - I think they like money...

They have individually-tailored table caps for ring games.

Touche.

Just seen that Baard has added a .50c 360. Kind of cool.

Hello all,

It’s that time of the week again...

I notice that there are a lot of discussions about whether or not we should deploy Zoom Sit&Gos.

At the moment we have no plans to deploy Zoom MTT SNGs. These plans could change, but right now I think it is more likely that you will not see Zoom Sit&Gos in the foreseeable future.

We are currently considering all our Sit&Go promotions, and BotP is one of the formats we are looking at. Adding a new division for the larger MTTs is one of the options we will consider. And while the 45+ MTT SNGs are not eligible for BotP, there are many of them that are eligible for the regular Tournament Leader Board.

And by the time you are reading this, I will have deployed a $0.50 360 man tournament.

We appreciate the growing interest in 6-max and hyper-turbo tournaments and will do some thinking about how we might be able to incorporate them without negatively affecting existing liquidity.

It's never as simple as simply adding one tournament. As soon as we start to support a type of tournament, it creates a following which will generate long term pressure to create similar tournaments. There are many types of SNG that would get sufficient support if they were added in the current environment, but we cannot support full offerings for all SNG types. Therefore, we must be very careful when considering additions.

We plan to at some point develop the ability to configure tournaments to have breaks only every other hour. We will then test this out for 27-mans and perhaps 18-mans. Having breaks every hour for these tournaments would not be desirable for recreational players.

Thanks,
Baard

Hyper SNGs 18 man looks like a sure money maker for Stars (6 max & 9 max).

The few satellites that use this format (Storm) are usually always running.

Appreciate the concerns about fracturing the player pool leading to longer waiting times for games going off etc. But as there is a clear demand for multi table hypers why not streamline your current offerings to create room for the new tournaments.

Something like:

Turbo- 18s, 45s and 180s only
Regular- 27s and 90s only
Hyper- 36s (6max) 54s (9 max)

The regular speed player pool seems the most fragile so having 27s and 90s makes more sense because they would go off faster than waiting for a 45 or 180 to fill. Clearly an argument could be made for keeping 45s and 180s as they have more demand currently but if so remove the 27s and 90s to concentrate the player pool.

The turbo pool only suffers with the removal of the lowstakes 90s and those players have a choice of switching to 45s or 180s.

If you think that existing demand calls for different specifics then fair enough but the only way you're going to prevent the player pool from fracturing is by removing less popular options while keeping up with market demand for new tournament types.

Buy in levels could be kept in line with the current structure.

That would be amazing

I think the opposite would happen. PokerStars would take a short hit on profits if they were to offer many types of SNGs, but the regs would adapt to other games to restock their volume level.

This would actually create more volume for PokerStars later on since more games are being played by the regs, giving rec players more options to play instantly.

With 3rd party apps (free AHK Windows Placemint), regs can sort and place different games depending on blinds, poker sites, speed, game type, ...., on their screen.

MTT players have been doing this for the longest time by combining different games, blind types, poker sites, and buy ins and still generating a profit.

Can't see why SNG players can't adapt as well.

this is a very good post. Even though I'm primarily a regspeed 180 player I'd support this as the $11s simply don't run enough and the prospect of regspeed 90s up to $27 buyins actually running would excite me!

OK so excite is too strong a word. But it would please me.

Agree, nice post KorbenRyan.