|
View Poll Results: Do you tan? | |||
Yes | 7 | 16.28% | |
No | 14 | 32.56% | |
No, but my significant other does | 0 | 0% | |
No, but I'd consider it | 4 | 9.30% | |
Tanning is gay, dude | 18 | 41.86% | |
Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 1-table S&Gs - your feedback requested
Agree with others that suggest switching the 100/200/25 level to 150/300/25. And/or possibly dropping the 100/200/0 level altogether.
Also agree that hands per level would be better than timed levels. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 1-table S&Gs - your feedback requested
[ 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 |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 1-table S&Gs - your feedback requested
[ 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 ] |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 1-table S&Gs - your feedback requested
hands per level is good except for one problem: When the STT gets 3-way of heads-up, the blinds can quickly become massive as ten hands go by in no time at all. Maybe adjust so that when the table gets short handed you also get more hands at a given level than you do in the early rounds....
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 1-table S&Gs - your feedback requested
[ 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 ] |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 1-table S&Gs - your feedback requested
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.
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 1-table S&Gs - your feedback requested
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.
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 1-table S&Gs - your feedback requested
[ 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. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 1-table S&Gs - your feedback requested
[ QUOTE ]
It has been my assumption for a couple years now that there is an unwritten agreement among poker sites to have the same approximate rake at different levels of SNGs. That is the only explanation for the lack of a rake war over the past 2-3 years. [/ QUOTE ] I think part of it is stupid consumers. Most sng rake is generated from unknowns and they don't really shop around, but just pick a site and stick with it, if that were the case sites like WPEX would be a lot more popular. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 1-table S&Gs - your feedback requested
[ 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. |
|
|