Baard will be back at the start of next week. Hopefully he'll review the threads on Monday and post on Tuesday. If not, I'm sure he'll be in here soon after.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Am_No_Doctor
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.
Pretty much everything that we run would run more if we moved just that format to hyper. If we moved everything, though, it wouldn't be so pretty. We'll keep reviewing, but for now we'll leave the 18s alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KorbenRyan
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.
You're right that in the long run, less popular options will need to be removed while keeping up with market demand for new tournament types, unless we grow the site enough to support additional types as needed.
We will likely do this gradually, however, rather than in one big change. We want to keep the shock to the existing player base as minimal as possible. Players don't like logging into the site to find that their favorite tournament is gone. To find that overnight they have gone from multiple choices to no buy-in options for their preferred combination of speed and size might be a bit much.
I do appreciate the thought you've put into your proposal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Am_No_Doctor
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.
The time it takes for tournaments to start is a key factor in keeping Sit & Go tournaments attractive for both regulars and recreational players. This is the main reason we do not split liquidity; we want to keep players grouped up as much as possible so that games start quickly.