[rubixxcube]

[ QUOTE ]
I would prefer 6 & 6a over just 6. The fact that those buying in directly would NOT like 6a makes it more likely I would want to play it. I have no problem working up from Step 1, if I have a better chance to cash out something at the top even without winning the package.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100% with this.
In my mind the steps were created for 1 reason mostly, to give us lower limit players a chance to play in a large buy in event.

No offense to higher limit players, but it seems like a lot of players in step 6 are direct buyins taking advantage of poor play. They have a right to do so if stars allows and i don't blame them for wanting and doing it.

This however defeats the original purpose of getting lower stakes players a shot to qualify for a major event.

My vote is for both steps and here is what my approach as a player will be if both are offered.

I will try to accumulate a few step 6 tickets(hoping i can do this). I would play the first few of them at the 1 table version so that way i at least would probably recoup some cash/entry fees back. If i failed to qualify for the package in any of the single table ones i would then take my shot at the 18 person ones with the last 2 or so.

At least then i have banked some cash/recouped entry fees if i was not to qualify in the 2 table step 6.

Lastly,If i was to win a step 6a i would definately play the remaining step 6 tickets in step 6a as winning a second package would be valueable but also unless i finished in 8/9th i would almost be a lock to get some cash/return for the remaining tickets.