While I won't be playing fulltilt and would abstain from a vote as such what is with the trend towards getting into push fold as soon as possible? It's nice to have profit beyond rakeback and 10/20 + 15/30 you're going to find your highest BB/100 the entire SNG. Hypers already fill that niche do they not?


Edited: I would like to propose starting the 2nd level of every sng with antes or at least start antes by 50/100 as an alternative compromise, would promote way more action.

Also any thoughts on the $300 50/50s Baard?

Im not sure trash, seems like its useless to play 40-75bb structures in games with 90% reg. While ur bb/100 might be the highest, in terms of $EV you will not win much, probably few arrogant regs gonna quote me on this and put some funny remark with it but this is the truth.

I think we should try to get sngs going in a turbo format that lets the 10-30blinds stacksizes flourish more because ur right 10bb- is covered completely with all the new hypers and turbo sngs go very qiuck from useless 40-75bb to 10bb- with only a few intermediate levels. Less 75-40bb time, more 30-10bb time, same 10bb- time would be better for a new type of turbo sng imo, in this type of setup regs can exploit eachother more without it being a shovefest where edges are small or a nitfest where edges are basically useless

I agree with this* and I hope that it doesn't happen. Its clear that BoP is a failed promo, but it sucks if SNG players get an effective rb decrease with no compensation.

First, it bears mentioning that the typical X minutes, 1500 chips, bb20 30 50 100 150 200 200a structure is a structure from like 2006.

Hypers already satisfy a pushfold game, but what do people that don't fall into the niche of hypers, what do they want to play? I think they want to play a game with a lot of flops, and the below is what I would start with to maybe think about how turbos could be improved.

-----------------------------
1500 chips, 4 minute levels

bb30, 40, 50, 60,
70a, 80, 120, 160
200, 250, 300, 400
500, 600, 800, 1000
-----------------------------

(Here is old structure for comparison)
1500 chips, 5 min levels
bb20 30 50
100 150 200
200a 300 400
600 800 1200

I think recs would like this structure more because there is more play, and also there would be more skill involved (read: regs could have higher roi) because it ignores awkward or less $ev/time levels.

--

Why the jump from 80 to 120 to 160? I think some stacks are very awkward and don't contribute to much action. For example, 50/100 no ante in a 9max turbo is a bad level compared to 40/80 or 60/120 ante. It's awkward for the stacks involved and encourages little action. The structure should try to encourage action.

Maybe even antes should start from the beginning of the tournament : I am a hyper player and I support that, but I am not a turbo player very much so much so I don't know if turbo players at large would support that, but that is something to consider. That's why I didn't include it.

Another thing that I thought of, I don't know how good it would be, but I notice some players are not ready to let go of 10/20 at 1500 chip turbos, because they do get a lot of play from that level. So I also had considered having like 3000 chips and starting at 25/50, that could be a better idea but I didn't explore it too much. Personally I think that all things considered, bb20 is not the right idea for turbos to create maximum play because of the time constraint (the tournament has to end in X minutes).

I think the general idea of trying to make the tournament last as long as possible from 20-50bb, and then just jump into < 12bb play (as with the 30 40 50 60 70 80 120 160 200 concept, where the jumps are by 10 then by 40 instead of more gradual) is the best strategy for creating the most play.

They key is if Stars lowers rake, even a small-ish amount for the shorter run time. If they charge the same for less play, that sucks for all of us. Even a small rake shift could help some Turbo ecosystems re-generate.

Part of the reason Stars came up with the idea was rec. players not wanting to be stuck playing long SNGs and giving them more of a medium option b/n hypers and reg speed. *If* it actually does make recs happier, that's a positive all around.

And like Quadz says, there's still plenty of edge/nuance in 10-30 BB which is what Turbos mostly are anyhow. And when you go into HEM and do the chip math, there isn't that much edge the 1st 2 levels, getting 8 hands/level (or whatever it is for people). Especially since that -50% ROI player that inflates your 10/20 chip winrate, will now be there 100% of the time at 25/50 (or wherever they start).

Since BoP is a discussion I will share my "gems" promo which I mentioned before and is similar in style to FTP's Ironman but has a few tweaks.

Before I do let me talk about STT promos or promos in general. In general all promotions should be aimed at recreational players and I agree that money in the poker economy (which includes in the SNG economy) does trickle up. That's why leaderboard promotions and roi-based promotions generally are not as successful as promotions on say, Party... the money just goes to padding winrates of regs so instead of X a year they make X+1% a year.

BUT if the money encourages recreationals to play, then the money donated to recreational players via promos will be soaked back in by regs anyways, plus the promo encourages more of them to play. It's likely better.

I think below is a great replacement for BoP.
------

Gems promo (These are just example numbers but they are fairly on point)

Every day you earn gems or stars or whatever based on the following targets:
5 VPP - 1 gem
25 VPP - 2 gems
50 VPP - 3 gems
100 VPP - 4 gems
250 VPP - 6 gems
500 VPP - 8 gems
1000 VPP - 10 gems
2500 VPP - 12 gems

A counter can display both how many VPP til your next reward (200 VPP until +2 gems!) plus display how many more games at your current stake.

Every month you get rewards based on the following targets [if a month has less than 30 days, make some days worth double]:

25★ - $5	30★ - $10	35★ - $15	40★ - $20
50★ - $25	60★ - $30	70★ - $40	80★ - $50
100★ - $60	120★ - $70	140★ - $80	160★ - $100
180★ - $120	200★ - $140	225★ - $160	250★ - $200
300★ - $250	370★ - $350	450★ - $1000

Additionally with badges that PS may* implement, you can display how many gems you collected this month or whatever.

Finally, *and this is the most important part of the system*, 10% of your stars from the last two months rounded will carry over to the next month. This makes it more addictive / locked in, because you can build progress.

I also agree with this, obviously making structures worse without rake compensation is terrible.

Right now my effort would be to try to keep the run-time the same, but offer more play -- this is much easier to push for than rake decreases. At the same time, if runtime did decrease, rake decreases are obviously on the table.

Turbos are supposed to satisfy a certain type of player that wants to play a game longer than a hyper. I agree with you about your suggestion of less rake turbos with less early levels. I think in the long long run [many years], there will be 2 types of games: a game a tiny bit faster than current hypers (12min), and a game a fair bit faster than turbos (30 min -- similar run time to what you suggested). (That's btw, based on the following: a casual player sits down, how much time do they wanna spend doodling around in X game?) But I don't think that we are there yet. (But maybe we are ready for replacing turbos with faster turbos.)

In the short run I think turbos should remain about 40 minutes but we should think about, within those 40 minutes, what structure is the best structure to offer. Because it probably isn't really the structure that was written figuratively on the back of a bus in 2006*. However, without more community consensus, it would be hard to convince PS of any real changes, so we should try to get behind some sort of structure (or structure + rake solution) that we realistically want PS to implement in 2013. Btw, the upcoming PS meetings are completely irrelevant for this topic, because without community consensus they won't ever just randomly change the structures (no amount of reps will change their mind.)

So maybe some people that play turbos a lot should chime in on what they think is the best solution for turbos. I don't really play turbos so admittedly I don't know that much.

please consider 60$ 9man hypers baard, 100$ isnt running, heck even remove 100s

I think most people (myself included) who play/try to start $100s would be in favor of swapping them out for the $60s which would actually run with some consistency.

I love this and this would make me play more.

Since the site is called PokerStars, would it not make sense to call them Stars? I BOP themes related to the planets, so maybe something to do with constellations in the skies (there are 88 iirc)?

I don't play 9m hypers but have said 2 or 3x itt to take $100 9m out and replace them with $60 9m until traffic is sufficient to add higher, so +1 again to Meca and Gramps

U wanna take away 10/20 awice c'mon man..

I also said its not my call, I don't even play turbos. Also I feel this is an oversimplification of what I suggested. That being said, turbo players should probably suggest something.

In order for anything to happen on this point (game change including structure and rake) there needs to be a big consensus, and then PS would likely act via a survey and possibly even PM or small stakes testing, and then they might switch. PS would never act willy-nilly on something like this.


To jia: They were originally called Stars during the last meeting but might be confusing with the VIP club

BAZINGA

That -50% ROI player will no longer be -50% ROI due to the simple fact that at 10/20 and 15/30 that player is risking more chips to win less on average post flop while at 25/50 pots will be bigger making the play not quite as bad (but still bad). Clearly regs can be exploited however edges vs other regs are for the most part overstated, the money in the games has always been and will always be the 10-20% of fish that enter the game. In a game where you're talking about 1-3% ROI pre rakeback you can't really be cutting out perceived edges no matter how small.


Put up antes (I mean this for stars not tilt as people want to see a non ante format there) in early game of turbos/non turbos while keeping the games deep early and watch the chips fly.

I'm with you on adding antes from the start in the current Turbo structure - I'd super-love that, you just have to have Stars like it too in their minds. Any proposed change they have to believe is in their interest and rec. players interest. Creating a structure where grinders have a bigger edge on rec. players from the start is a tough sell IMO.

They like/suggested starting at 20/40 with the hyper (antes) structure, which takes away grinders highest bb/100 levels, but if they also offer a 1%+ ROI rake cut along with it for the shorter runtime, and rec. players do indeed like that format/runtime better, then it can be a win-win-win IMO for grinders/Stars/rec. players all things considered.

Or start experimenting on FTP2 with or without antes, that makes more sense to me to be the testing ground than your more established ecosystems on Stars.

I agree we should be trying to please Stars in such a way that they would be open to a SNG rake cut, but I don't see it happening. I think we should try something like a new promotion. Doesn't even necessarily have to eliminate the BOP. The promo Awice suggested isn't specific to SNGs, it could be something new Stars offers. A specific SNG promotion that would replace the BOP I suggested a while ago: The lottery promotion.

Every week there is a lottery, and you get a ticket for every 20 SNGs you play until you've earned 5, after that you receive one every 100 (random numbers obv, I picked ones that look like the BOP promotion). Every week a number of tickets are chosen and they get prices.

Imo this would be great because a micro stakes player would have the same shot at a good price as a high stakes player, which is one of the issues of the current BOP. The 300$+ SNG prizes always go to the same guys.

I think giving players an incentive to play higher stakes is a good thing. Just because the BOP fails to achieve this doesn't mean it's impossible.

i'd really like to see the hyper structure remain the same. 25bbs from start a lot different than 12.5.

Antes from start in turbos would be awesome

If the $300+ bonuses always go to the same guys, seems like people should try to be one of those guys...

Disagree with this. It's already like $100 in equity, so if it was 4x as often for 1/4th the $ it would be a $25 MTT, which basically isn't worth the table space for a lot of players. That's not to sound conceited or arrogant, simply you're doing yourself a disservice if you're trying to grind SNE and you have $25 MTTs in your screen real estate.

I also have a ton of unused tix, I'd like a way to just exchange them from $$ or combine for an entry into something bigger if anything.

+1 to adding 60 9m hypers and removing 100s. The 100s do occasionally run but not enough. The addition of 15s has already helped the 30s and i think the 60s would get pretty decent traffic eventually if introduced.

I have been firmly in this camp for ages, but word it BOP is 100% on the way out, so if this is anyones opinion its time to be more vocal about arguing for replacements.

Personally, I like the gems idea from Alex, but I think some sort of leaderboard should also continue but with rolling scores (and i like the 20/100 block sizes as they suit recs/regs) to incentivize more play when runing hot rather than having to hope you ran hot in the right place (E.g, you were about to got out but win four games in a row, now you stay in and play another 16!). I think rolling score and proper promotion would be much more likely to make it worth the money it costs.

Also, I know people seem to think that BOP favours high stakes regs (which it sort of should since they are paying more rake/playing higher/have lower edges), but basically the highest stakes games (300+) mostly run around people trying to get this extra money as almost every game is 5-6 regs. I certainly consider the chances of getting these prizes a massive factor in how many 300+ games i play in a given week, and I predict removing it will have a serious adverse effect on these games, either because ppl will realise quickly they no longer are profitable, or wont and will go broke/move down. I know it costs a lot, but no replacement is also going to cost Stars a lot in lost rake imo.

Anyway, I agree some sort of medal system for the lower end of the ecosystem is also warranted and think both would keep things running smoothly. Obviously the alternative is lower rake across the board, but this affects the economy by making targets like SNE harder and again disincentivizes people from grinding which is a bad thing, especially with FTP coming back online.

Finally, there is the issue of unused BOP Freeroll Shootout tickets, which many people have accumulated spares in. If I'd been flying with one company for years running a business and somehow had millions of air miles saved up for some reason, and they suddenly decided an air miles scheme wasn't worth it for them anymore, Id sure as hell expect compensation to be one of the loose ends that was tied up, and I hope something reasonable will be done about this. If nothing else, it would be a good way of rounding off the promo positively. Suggestions? Perhaps they could be converted into tourney tickets of some other type that people will use on the site with similar value.

If a gems style of promo runs next year then PS and FTP will just be converging on each other fast. I personally think that PS should try to keep each company unique and fresh so that both sites attract the different types of rec players. I appreciate that i am not supplying an alternate idea to AWices but i'm sure the marketing guys at PS can put together an idea that is different to what we have seen already.

I wrote like pages of bull**** but I realize noone really gives a ****, so I rewrote all of it to try to give just a point form version. It's still long, sorry I really tried to compress my arguments as tight as possible.

===============

Reg speeds are dead, even turbos aren't as vitalized as they could be. Stop saying "don't fix it if it ain't broken", I looked at >= $30s and there wasn't a single reg speed running. That's broken in my opinion.

2013 is the best time to get anything done, any other time in the year they will be like but nahhhh don't wanna upset SN+ players.

Why? Its like vegas slots. Why do they pay 97% instead of 80%? It's more optimal to keep em coming back. If they keep coming back [sheared], their money eventually evaporates. If they get skinned, they get this feeling like they are unlucky, or its rigged, or whatever, and they don't come back. When you offer a 9% rake reg speed, a recreational player loses another 11% so they are -20%, and bam they don't come back.

There are certain niches, which exist on roughly a 2 dimensional space: quantity of time it takes to finish the tournament, and what % of the time each player is in certain play "bands": the bands being ~80bb, ~40bb, ~20bb, ~10bb, ~5bb. Note that this is decoupled - just because you want a lot of 80bb play doesn't mean the tournament has to be slow as ****.

Notice the bands and time to act uniquely define a structure. For example, say you wanted to fulfill a niche of players that want a tournament to end in 6 minutes, they want to play is 80% pushfold, 20% ~20bb play. The structure I would suggest is 1000 chips, 1 min levels, bb50 100 150 200 300 400.

For another example, suppose a niche wanted a tournament to end in 45 mins, and were really in love with 80bb and 40bb play. The structure I would suggest is 1500 chips, 6 min levels, bb20 20 30 30 40 100 150 200 300. Notice these are extremal examples, in reality a "middle of the road" option is often best, but it is important to think about exactly how much time is devoted in each band.

Also finally bands should be micro-optimized, the best example is the 50-100 level of 9max sngs, this is one of the worst levels in terms of both fun (very few flops, awkward pushfolding leading to just nitty play overall), and regs EV. Remember the 20 30 50 100 150 200 200a structure was literally written a decade ago, its probably not very well optimized.

===

Here I just used $30 6max hyper turbo and reg as an example but its similar in a lot of cases.
Hyper: 15mins, 4.05% rake
Turbo: 35mins, 7.76% rake
Norm: 65mins, 8.77% rake

I think in the ideal, it should be something like this:
Hyper: rake 4%, 15min completion
Turbo: rake 6%, 27min completion
Norm: rake 7.5%, 40min completion

Ideally, rake would be reconsidered and be in line with what eg. CAP rake is for comparable stakes in terms of rake paid per 100 hands. I didn't look at this angle yet but I will too.
=====

Conclusion:

If we can agree that these kinds of guidelines are overall good for the SNG ecosystem then we will already make big progress in repairing the game and making it more attractive to fish that we are losing to MTTSNGs and cap.

Games that are too long, are not as attractive to fish because 1. they are long and 2. they lose too much in them. At the same time, we don't need to sacrifice the ethos of turbo and reg speed tournaments, which do want to offer ~40bb and ~80bb play; people like playing real poker with high stack to pot ratios too. We can both decrease the time of these tournaments, the rake, and still keep those values.

I think people that primarily play turbos should think about these things and try to create some sort of actionable thing they want PS to actually do that we can realistically get behind. IF you guys do that, then I can take those suggestions and run with them and maybe something can happen. Otherwise don't whine if they do nothing and its business as usual again. Right now is the time for larger changes (start of the year) if you want them.

Non turbo traffic was pretty dried up after bf yes but it didn't get really bad until they limited the spawn rate to 2 games (I protested hard against this to no avail saying this would be the end result). There is something about 10 games appearing to be loaded that attract fish to thinking games don't take that long to load. I think load times are a HUGE decision in fishes decision to play.

I plan to play non turbos next year when I'm ahead of pace on SNE and would be disgusted with your changes, I like a variance free breaker.

Pretty much -1 to your entire post of speeding it up and decreasing rake, leave hypers to hypers.