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.