Petition to Change Stars' Supernova qualification

[davebreal]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker stars does not want to make it easy to make that status because they do not want their site filled with winning players.

[/ QUOTE ]

quite possibly one the most moronic things i've read here. who do you think pays more rake: 9-tabling ring players like myself, or 1-tabling fishies who go bust on the micros.

of course there is a hierarchy to online poker where the profit trickles up from the bad players to the good ones... but i am not sure this is discussed at PokerStars board meetings. of course they are interested in attracting new customers and diverting traffic from other sites... but in all reality it is the people who keep the tables going 24hrs/day and who are willing to open new tables that are the most important.

[ChoicestHops]

I dont think it should be changed.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker stars does not want to make it easy to make that status because they do not want their site filled with winning players.


[/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
When did you start playing at Stars? How has it not been possible for you to achieve it by now? Do you play full time or have a normal job? If poker is your sole job, then 2 months should definitely be enough time to make it if you're willing to work hard imo. 3 months would be a decent amount of work. 4 months would be a walk in the park imo for any full time player thats actually putting in any reasonable amount of hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

*playing on stars as primary site since the split ~10/13/06
*full time school
*moving residence this month
*Even without school, the most poker my brain can take is 40-45K hands/month

[xSCWx]

I'm not going to argue, but I feel obliged to add that I think it should be changed to any 12 month period. The way I look at it is, a player who earns 100k FPP from March through March has created the same amount of revenue as a player who has earned 100k FPP from January through December.

I will continue to play on Stars either way, but I know a few people who haven't played on Stars because they are displeased with the current system.

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that people are losing value simply based on the month they start playing on Poker Stars. It's a bad way to set up a reward system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its simply a more difficult goal. Any 12 month period is much easier than one calendar year. Just as it'd be much easier to attain the other levels over any 30 days than one calendar month. If they made it any 12 month period, then imo they should up the number of VPPs needed to make it more difficult.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be willing to cut it down to say 9 consecutive months or 1 calendar year. That seems very fair and won't punish new players to the site who happen to come in at a later month in the year.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
Some great posts in this thread. What should Stars do with players that make 99K VPPs for the year? If you think they should be bumped up to Supernova, where do we draw the line and why?

[/ QUOTE ]
If someone earns 99K VPPs for the year it is harsh and inequitable to say ‘sorry, your VPP counter is reset at zero: start again’. I will be very disappointed if PokerStars does that.

You don’t have to bump the person with 99K up to Supernova. Simply give them the period from February 1 ’06 through January 31 ’07 to reach the 100K total. And if they still don’t make it, let them have from March 1 ’06 through February 28 ’07.

In other words, have a rolling 12-month period to make the 100K points for Supernova. That is most equitable to your loyal players, and also creates proper incentives for prospective players.

(As Gotmilk cogently noted in this post, the current system gives prospective high-volume players an incentive to wait until January of the following year to begin playing at Pokerstars, rather than starting there in the middle of the year.)

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some great posts in this thread. What should Stars do with players that make 99K VPPs for the year? If you think they should be bumped up to Supernova, where do wedraw the line and why?

[/ QUOTE ]
If someone earns 99K VPPs for the year it is harsh and inequitable to say ‘sorry, your VPP counter is reset at zero: start again’. I will be very disappointed if PokerStars does that.

You don’t have to bump the person with 99K up to Supernova. Simply give them the period from February 1 ’06 through January 31 ’07 to reach the 100K total. And if they still don’t make it, let them have from March 1 ’06 through February 28 ’07.

In other words, have a rolling 12-month period to make the 100K points for Supernova. That is most equitable to your loyal players, and also creates proper incentives for prospective players.

(As Gotmilk cogently noted in this post, the current system gives prospective high-volume players an incentive to wait until January of the following year to begin playing at Pokerstars, rather than starting there in the middle of the year.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Scotty,
I play on FTP usually 25-50k hands a month...and am slowly working on increasing it with more play and tables.

I have been waiting to deposit money and play on stars for several months simply for the above bolded reason.

Makes far more sense for PS to change it in the future.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]


Second of all, we here at these forums should not be working against other poker players by making it harder to attain nova status, isnt the point of this community to help each other ? hence the strategy posts and assitance ? If we were all competing with each other than why even have this forum and give strategic tips , because in the end the tips your giving is -ev for you. If you greedy people are worried about the last droplets of free roll equity than you can have it. Because for people like you it doenst matter if you make 5k a month or 10k a month you will still be SELFISH people who dont spend a penny of the money anyways.


[/ QUOTE ]

We here all share the same job, whether or not we do it full or part time: the job of poker players. Imagine for a second that this is a more normal job. Imagine that our company had some incentive where if employees could accomplish a certain task then they'd achieve a bonus of some sort. Now imagine that you work your ass off to achieve this. The deadline comes and your boss announces "Hey everyone. Good job to those who achieved the bonus. I've actually decided to relax the standards so that many more people can also enjoy the bonus. Congrats all."

How would you feel? Sure technically you're not losing anything, but doesn't it kind of suck to have people who didn't work as hard as you getting the reward also?

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When did you start playing at Stars? How has it not been possible for you to achieve it by now? Do you play full time or have a normal job? If poker is your sole job, then 2 months should definitely be enough time to make it if you're willing to work hard imo. 3 months would be a decent amount of work. 4 months would be a walk in the park imo for any full time player thats actually putting in any reasonable amount of hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

*playing on stars as primary site since the split ~10/13/06
*full time school
*moving residence this month
*Even without school, the most poker my brain can take is 40-45K hands/month

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then if you want to be a part of the highest level, you have to play at the highest level. Play more! If you can't, then you don't get it.