Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

OK, I have a gripe that I just need to get off my chest. Look at your PokerStars Tourney lobby at any point during the day. Look at how many friggin satellites are running.

Thats a good thing, right? Of course it is. Satellites are excellent.

So whats the problem?

Stars employs a T$/W$ system for their satellites - similar to how the WSOP will have satellites and issue WSOP lammers. Why on God's green earth do there need to be 30+ MTT satellites each hour - not even counting the SNG ones.

If you're going to stick with a T$/W$ system, all you need to do is this:

Have SNGs or MTTs for a certain amount of T$. Simple. There's no need to have specific satellites into 20 different daily events - they all use the same exact currency. The main culprit is the WCOOP satellites running right now. Is it really necessary to have different satellites to each $215 NL event?

Why not just have...

:03 - $2 buy-in, $22 T$/lammer
:13 - $6 buy-in, $55 T$/lammer
:23 - $11 buy-in, $109 T$/lammer
:33 - $22 buy-in, $215 T$/lammer
:43 - $55 buy-in, $535 T$/lammer
etc

Thats all. No need to market them as satellites for certain events if you're not going to force the satellite winners to play them.


What really *should* be happening if you want satellites for specific tournaments is you force play of the 1st seat and then give out T$/W$ for any additional seats (or just cash...), similar to FullTilt.

I just find it pretty annoying. The system is flawed the way it is currently setup. Its similar to the WSOP ME - less fish are going to actually play an event if they know they can simply choose not to play and receive that much in $.


tl/dr = Either run tournaments w/ specific T$ prizes rather than to specific tournaments to eliminate clutter (and to allow the actual SNG satellites to fill up 20x quicker) or force play of the first satellite seat won.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

the sats need to be for specific events. fishies don't play sats for T$/W$, they play for an entry into a big tournament where they could win thousands. it's selling the dream.

the only real problem with the system is that there are just too many running too close together.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

[ QUOTE ]
the sats need to be for specific events. fishies don't play sats for T$/W$, they play for an entry into a big tournament where they could win thousands. it's selling the dream.

the only real problem with the system is that there are just too many running too close together.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The point is that you should be forced to play the first seat you win.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

I've been asking for the 1st seat rule forever.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

nope, please reread my post.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

i disagree with the first seat rule. it is better to decide if you wanna play. but i agree that will be better if they are more specific and will fill up faster i think

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

I agree, if you don't give the Sat. a target, the fish will not play... What is more appealing, "$10 rebuy to Sunday Million" or "$10 rebuy for $215 $T"? I think thats obv.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

apparently the problem with your ideas, dmk, is that no one understands them :P.

I like either the idea of the first seat won being mandatory, or the idea of generic satellite tourneys. Those would fill up much faster and more consistently.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

[ QUOTE ]
the sats need to be for specific events. fishies don't play sats for T$/W$, they play for an entry into a big tournament where they could win thousands. it's selling the dream.

the only real problem with the system is that there are just too many running too close together.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is 100%.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

First seat rule fails totally if say:

I win a seat monday and on Friday I find out I have to work sunday. Oops I lose 215 bucks.


I'd be more in favor for tickets that are sellable, but the system right now is more than fine; always improvable, but fine.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

They have no problem with filling up the Sunday Million or matching any of their other guarantees, so why change a working system?

Running a ton of satellites generates more rake, so it is in the sites interest to run more satellites. I mean, they rake the satellite entries, then a portion of the sat. seat or t$ is going to rake anyways, so it's a win-win for the players who sat. in (discounted buy-in for bigger tourne) and for the sites (more rake).

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

i definitely like your idea, i just dont think stars will change it without a need to

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

I'm unclear as to why exactly you think running a lot of satellites is bad. Having sats to specific events makes it much easier and simpler for the majority of satellite players who are playing for a seat into a tournament. I think if you took this away and implemented a must play rule sats would get much less traffic, big tournaments would get fewer players, and stars would make less in rake. With the variety that they currently provide it makes it easier for players to qualify for an event since they can choose which satellites they like and suits them best.

With the way stars does $T and $W sats to different types of tournaments need to be distinguished and imo, most people that sat into a $W tournmanet play it and don't sell their seat for $W as most players don't understand how they work or how to go about selling them.

If all sats were for $T you'd still need to have different games for the different types of wcoop events.

Also if you don't include sng or the sunday million ds sats that run 4 times/hr there are generally only 7 or 8 sats/hr, including fpp sats. You're 30/hr mark is way off.

Variety is good, for the players and for the site. I would play at FTP much more if they didn't have a must play satellite rule.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

[ QUOTE ]
Variety is good, for the players and for the site. I would play at FTP much more if they didn't have a must play satellite rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

Although I must say I'm registered for three WCOOP events that I really have little intent on playing because I plan on eventually selling the W$. So there's probably a point to be made that Stars' lack of a 'must-play first seat' rule keeps some donkey money like mine out of big events, too. On the whole, though, I think the current W$/T$ model is best for a wide variety of reasons.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

[ QUOTE ]
What really *should* be happening if you want satellites for specific tournaments is you force play of the 1st seat and then give out T$/W$ for any additional seats (or just cash...), similar to FullTilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the number one thing I've been wanting to see for awhile now. This will make the satellites softer and the tourneys softer, which will be good for fish and sharks alike.

It will stop people from being able to just grind sats soley to make T$/W$ and sell it as they will at least have to play their first entry. Taking at least a few of the better players out of some of the sats.

It will force everyone to play their first seat making the tourneys easier.

It's never really made a lot of sense to me why you don't have to play your first seat. It seems like this would be the standard.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

jgunnip,

See badgerpro's comment as it is exactly what i'm saying

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What really *should* be happening if you want satellites for specific tournaments is you force play of the 1st seat and then give out T$/W$ for any additional seats (or just cash...), similar to FullTilt.

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What really *should* be happening if you want satellites for specific tournaments is you force play of the 1st seat and then give out T$/W$ for any additional seats (or just cash...), similar to FullTilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the number one thing I've been wanting to see for awhile now. This will make the satellites softer and the tourneys softer, which will be good for fish and sharks alike.

It will stop people from being able to just grind sats soley to make T$/W$ and sell it as they will at least have to play their first entry. Taking at least a few of the better players out of some of the sats.

It will force everyone to play their first seat making the tourneys easier.

It's never really made a lot of sense to me why you don't have to play your first seat. It seems like this would be the standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said in my post, if you run into a scheduling conflict with the tourney, you lose a few hundred dollars. This would make me less inclined to play sats unless I KNEW I was able to make the day. If I was even unsure, I wouldn't take the risk.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

[ QUOTE ]
jgunnip,

See badgerpro's comment as it is exactly what i'm saying

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with both you and badger pro, but:

"It will stop people from being able to just grind sats soley to make T$/W$ and sell it as they will at least have to play their first entry"

Sat grinders obviously don't want a "must play first seat" policy [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] -- and most importantly, because satellites are profitable for Stars, and the 'target' tournaments like the Sunday Mil are well-populated and seem to always meet their guarantees, there's no real impetus for Stars to change their system.

If high stakes players really want donkeys and satellite grinders flooding the big Sunday tournaments, then I think the real impediment to that happening is that Stars allows players to make T$/W$ transfers to other players for cash. I think the "must play first seat" policy is a step in that direction (that direction = making the high stake tournaments with feeders softer), but I doubt Stars really wants to disrupt the current system all that much since it seems to keep the money moving and the sats populated, etc., which invariably means more rake for Stars. I think Stars benefits so long as their player's money (be it cash, T$/W$, etc.) is as liquid as possible. Take the WCOOP sats for instance: if I win a sat to a WCOOP event, why lock me into $525 or $1050 tournament that's a month or more away, when I could have that money now and continue to play with it, generating rake and keeping their games full, etc.

So while I see your/Badger's point, unless there's some angle I'm missing here that would really benefit Stars by changing their policy, my suspicion the current paradigm is here to stay.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

The obvious solution is to give out a token which can be used a 215$ or 530$ tourney or whatever the satellite was to. You dont have to play the next one, but you have to play.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

[ QUOTE ]
The obvious solution is to give out a token which can be used a 215$ or 530$ tourney or whatever the satellite was to. You dont have to play the next one, but you have to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep...and somewhat what Full Tilt already does.

If the tokens are sellable and such, that might be fine. If people want it to be different than now, make them sellable ONLY back to PStars for 75% of their value. So if you sell a 215 token, you can only get 170ish(fuzzy math) back for it. This promotes playing the actual event, but if all you have left in your account is a token you luckboxed months before...then you can cash it out.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The obvious solution is to give out a token which can be used a 215$ or 530$ tourney or whatever the satellite was to. You dont have to play the next one, but you have to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep...and somewhat what Full Tilt already does.

If the tokens are sellable and such, that might be fine. If people want it to be different than now, make them sellable ONLY back to PStars for 75% of their value. So if you sell a 215 token, you can only get 170ish(fuzzy math) back for it. This promotes playing the actual event, but if all you have left in your account is a token you luckboxed months before...then you can cash it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone stated earlier, tokens hurt the fluidity of players funds. A case can be made for either side, but I don't see a reason for Stars to change their system when the one in place already provides plenty of satellite winners to the big tournament, etc.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

[ QUOTE ]

As I said in my post, if you run into a scheduling conflict with the tourney, you lose a few hundred dollars. This would make me less inclined to play sats unless I KNEW I was able to make the day. If I was even unsure, I wouldn't take the risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem if a few less people play when they are 'not sure' yet if they will be available on that day. I really think if you're playing in a sat you should be playing it so that you can play the tourney the sat is for. Also, with Stars support I'm sure if you emailed them the situation they would allow you to transfer your entry to another tourney as long as you weren't continually asking to have this done.

[ QUOTE ]
Sat grinders obviously don't want a "must play first seat" policy [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] -- and most importantly, because satellites are profitable for Stars, and the 'target' tournaments like the Sunday Mil are well-populated and seem to always meet their guarantees, there's no real impetus for Stars to change their system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except to make it a better place for the casual player to play. While much of their business does come from grinders/sharks without having a site full of casual/fish type players they will lose the other players quickly. It's been argued many times that we would like to see better/longer structures and the counter argument has always been that they still need to cater to the casual players who can't commit so much time or have to be at work the next day and don't want to play in a tourney that last until early in the morning.

Full Tilt obviously does fine getting players to play its sats and has no problem filling its tourneys so I can't see Stars forcing you to play your first seat hurting their business.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

I would vote for leaving the satellite system as it is. I like being able to play sats once in a while, without worrying about whether I'll be able to play the particular tourney I'm qualifying for. I usually don't even care when I enter, since I'm just playing for T$. So I play more sats, and Stars gets more rake. If I had to play the Sunday Million, I would never play a $3R, since it wouldn't make sense with my bankroll.

On the other hand, I would like to make it easier to find sats I want to play. If I want to play Sats that are Turbo Rebuys between $2 and $5, I have to find them manually. There's no tab or combination of existing filters that makes this easy. Sorting by Buy-In helps, but then tourneys at around the same time are separated. And if I want to just play WCOOP sats, the tab for that has very limited filtering available, only cash vs FPP vs SNG. You can't even toggle to only show registering/upcoming on the Events tab.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would vote for leaving the satellite system as it is. I like being able to play sats once in a while, without worrying about whether I'll be able to play the particular tourney I'm qualifying for. I usually don't even care when I enter, since I'm just playing for T$.

[/ QUOTE ]

This bold part pretty much makes my exact point. With T$ selling at 99.5% there are way too many people playing these just to sell the T$. Back when you could buy at 95% or so it was different.

I really think Stars should create some way for players to trade and sell W$/T$ between themselves.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would vote for leaving the satellite system as it is. I like being able to play sats once in a while, without worrying about whether I'll be able to play the particular tourney I'm qualifying for. I usually don't even care when I enter, since I'm just playing for T$.

[/ QUOTE ]

This bold part pretty much makes my exact point. With T$ selling at 99.5% there are way too many people playing these just to sell the T$. Back when you could buy at 95% or so it was different.

I really think Stars should create some way for players to trade and sell W$/T$ between themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

How long ago were T$ selling for 95%?

I play for T$ so that I can play SNGs as well as Tourneys. This flexibility makes them attractive to me. I'm not grinding satellites by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a recreational player. I'm also a net buyer of T$, because of the slight discount. The only time I remember selling any was when someone offered 100%.

And Stars obviously has a way to trade and sell W$/T$, that's what makes the existing market. The actual market is handled by the internet (2+2, etc.), but the execution happens on stars. That's also what makes folks feel safe about buying T$/W$, Stars handles the transaction. What I think you meant was for Stars to provide a way for buyer and seller to get together. But frankly, I don't think that's a big business for them.

In fact, they collect money when people play the sats with real $. When people win T$/W$, Stars is better off if it sits in their account, since it's an IOU against Stars, and they don't pay any interest on it. The more W$ and T$ that sit unused, the better off they are, I suspect. Of course, the same is true for real $ in the account, except that I can't cash out W$/T$ without selling it for $ or playing a tourney and winning.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

[ QUOTE ]
With T$ selling at 99.5% there are way too many people playing these just to sell the T$. Back when you could buy at 95% or so it was different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this a bad thing? People sold WSOP lammers at 100%.

Forcing people to play, may make the sats a little softer, but not the bigger tourneys IMO.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

Personally, I currently play the Sunday Mil sats for the t$ to play tournaments and occsionally take a shot at a higher buy-in tourney that is slightly above my roll.

If there were satellites that awarded $20-$55 tournament seats, I would definitely think about playing the actual tournament as opposed to simply unregistering. Although, I don't think me deciding what to do with my t$ has any effect on Stars' bottom line.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

[ QUOTE ]
How long ago were T$ selling for 95%?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a year ago you could buy $215 for $200 - $205.

[ QUOTE ]
What I think you meant was for Stars to provide a way for buyer and seller to get together. But frankly, I don't think that's a big business for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's what I mean.

[ QUOTE ]
Stars is better off if it sits in their account,

[/ QUOTE ]

This is untrue though. It actually hurts Stars as there are a few T$/W$ selling and buying places on the net who do very very well off of this system. These places obviously take money out of the poker economy that Stars would probably see recycled through its site a few times otherwise.

Also, if someone is looking to sell it they are going to do so anyways regardless of whether or not Stars provides them with a place to.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

[ QUOTE ]
Full Tilt obviously does fine getting players to play its sats and has no problem filling its tourneys so I can't see Stars forcing you to play your first seat hurting their business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Badger have to disagree with you somewhat here. I find Full Tilt's sats to be very low populated on too many occasions. I rarely find one with a nice sized field at the hours I play. Usually I'm just looking for a sat as a screen filler during a session. For example the $24 + $2's (1 in 9) to the FTOPS are more like a 2-3 table sit n go with only 2-3 seats awarded during much of the non-prime time hours. These are of no interest to me when I can play a $36 + $3 or an $11R on Stars with a significantly larger sized field.

Because of this Full Tilt doesn't get as much of my Satellite play as Stars does.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Full Tilt obviously does fine getting players to play its sats and has no problem filling its tourneys so I can't see Stars forcing you to play your first seat hurting their business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Badger have to disagree with you somewhat here. I find Full Tilt's sats to be very low populated on too many occasions. I rarely find one with a nice sized field at the hours I play. Usually I'm just looking for a sat as a screen filler during a session. For example the $24 + $2's (1 in 9) to the FTOPS are more like a 2-3 table sit n go with only 2-3 seats awarded during much of the non-prime time hours. These are of no interest to me when I can play a $36 + $3 or an $11R on Stars with a significantly larger sized field.

Because of this Full Tilt doesn't get as much of my Satellite play as Stars does.

[/ QUOTE ]


You have to realize that this is because Full Tilt isn't as big of a site as Stars. When they have their $500k on Sundays it gets about half the runners Stars Million does at the same buyin. So for their sats to get half the runners Stars does at off peak times makes sense.

If you look at the sats that FT runs directly before an event they are getting the same number of runners as Stars sats (with half the player base). Their big 150 seat turbo freezeout directly before the 500k gives out over 300 seats.

The $100 turbo freezeout to the $1k tonight had 158 runners. The $8.80 turbo rebuy to the $163 had 112 only but considering that they have two big tourneys running tonight I thought that was pretty good. They also filled 3 $100 turbo 54 player freezeouts to the $1k. Stars had 172 and 211 runners in the two $11 turbo rebuys for their $162 tonight.

You also have to realize that many players are playing the Stars rebuys just for the T$. While some players on Full Tilt I'm sure are working on multiple seats just for money at least they are all actually playing in the event and not just grinding the sats.

I understand casual players who aren't sure if they can play the event like the idea of not being locked in but I've felt quite strongly for a long time that if you're playing in a sat to an event you should be committed to playing that event.

------

As an after thought to writing this I think if they want to keep the current system but make sats that run the same day as an event "must play seat" sats that would work and might even be the best of both worlds. That way playing a sat on Monday for the Sunday Million doesn't lock you in but at the same time forces people to only play the ones directly before the event if they actually want to play it. Obviously if you are playing a sat for the event that takes place the same day you should know if you can play the event or not.

The warning could easily be displayed in the upper right of the tourney lobby and while there might be some confusion during the first week or two of this people would quickly catch on.

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

Wasn't full tilt supposed to come out with a $T system similar to how they do it on Stars? Swear I read that somewhere.

I didn't know about the 150 seat gtd every sunday before the 500k. I'll have to check that out.

Thanks,
Amerzel

Re: Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really think Stars should create some way for players to trade and sell W$/T$ between themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more with this point. Every time I win a satellite for W$, one of the W$ traders is in there spamming the chatbox. I think it sucks that they're allowed to spam Stars chat to take advantage of people who are under-rolled and/or don't have enough connections to get the best available rates for their W$. Why does Stars even let them do it? Seems everyone would be better if Stars had their own system as mentioned earlier. I've e-mailed Stars before to complain about the W$ spammers but they don't seem to mind too much.

As for the must-play rule it just seems dumb to me. People should be able to play when they want to and not get locked in to tourneys that are days or even weeks away.