1-table S&Gs - your feedback requested

[Kyer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you really want to find a disparity try doing the same calculations for sngs with buyins over $500. How on earth is there any logical reason that the rake barely goes up at all in cash games whether you're playing 5/10 or 500/1000, yet the rake in sngs is 90 times higher in a 2k buyin than it is in a $15 buyin?

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[/ QUOTE ]

[KCW12]

What do people think about getting rid of the 100/200 level altogether and going straight to 100/200/25 with an added 150/300/25 level? Somehow I like that idea better than jumping from 100/200 straight to 150/300/25, though that's not bad either.

[DannyOcean_]

I would switch from FTP to Stars if you reduced the rake. As someone mentioned, it costs you EXACTLY THE SAME to run a 100 dollar buyin or a 10 dollar buyin. So much more rake is rediculous, and may be a sign of collusion among sites. Why aren't you having rake wars with other sites? I guarantee you that you'd have way more action at your high stakes SNGS if you just lowered the rake a leeetle.

[Bishop22]

[ QUOTE ]
I would switch from FTP to Stars if you reduced the rake. As someone mentioned, it costs you EXACTLY THE SAME to run a 100 dollar buyin or a 10 dollar buyin. So much more rake is rediculous, and may be a sign of collusion among sites. Why aren't you having rake wars with other sites? I guarantee you that you'd have way more action at your high stakes SNGS if you just lowered the rake a leeetle.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

Hands, not time, although this may make them last too long, the structure would have to be looked at. Since lowering the rake across the board seems unlikely at least fix the obvious errors where the rake increases as the stakes increases and maybe double the FPPs for STTs so at least the high volume players take less of a rake hit.

[MATT238]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would switch from FTP to Stars if you reduced the rake. As someone mentioned, it costs you EXACTLY THE SAME to run a 100 dollar buyin or a 10 dollar buyin. So much more rake is rediculous, and may be a sign of collusion among sites. Why aren't you having rake wars with other sites? I guarantee you that you'd have way more action at your high stakes SNGS if you just lowered the rake a leeetle.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

Hands, not time, although this may make them last too long, the structure would have to be looked at. Since lowering the rake across the board seems unlikely at least fix the obvious errors where the rake increases as the stakes increases and maybe double the FPPs for STTs so at least the high volume players take less of a rake hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is lowering the rake unlikely? Stars is obviously reading this thread and must know that the higher SNG action has dried up. This will only continue to spread to the mid-level limits as more and more regulars are driven to either other sites, cash games, or out of poker entirely. Stars needs to step-up and do something to change things.

[Gary212121]

if i still played a lot on stars id say id like to see the blinds go from 100/200 to 150/300/25 to 200/400/50.

The reason i dont play on stars anymore is b.c. of the rake w/ SNGs. Its just soo hard to make a profit playing nowadays w/ the high rake that i had to find some kind of solution. So i switched to FTP for awhile b.c. of rakeback and all the bonuses. If stars could somehow lower the rake for their SNGs then they cold compete w/ FTP. I will say though that the 15+1 is a good price, so if other tourneys could be that around that price i would be more likely to jump back onto stars as my main site.

[wdcbooks]

I think the important benefit to Stars of lowering the rake is that it drives pros up to the next level. The lower level STTs are the bread and butter game, and they are where new players turn to first. If they are filled with multi-tabling TAGs, those players get wiped out more quickly. By making the higher buy in STTs more competitive rake wise, Stars improves the quality of the lower buy in games for their casual players. The total cost isn't as high because there will always be a relatively low number of higher buy in games as compared to lower limits.

Some day this will become like the airlines, and being like Southwest, the first to jump in with consistently low costs, will pay dividends down the road.