Official Supernova Elite Thread

[fluorescenthippo]

[ QUOTE ]
River Prayer plays what? limit HE?

[/ QUOTE ]

idk if you are serious or not but he plays high stakes sngs.



also congrats to him

[Scottyy]

We will have Supernova Elite #6 later today. Congratulations redargoe!

Scotty

[ycjason]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't play them that often so I'm not really sure.

Wouldn't the turbo's generally average less than 45 minutes?
They pretty much never make it to an hour I thought.

I'm looking at one turbo right now where they are 40 mins in and are heads-up at the 300/600 level.
Next level at 45 mins is 400/800.
There are only 13,500 chips total on the table.

So I think that them lasting longer than 45 minutes would be more uncommon.

And that's IF he wins or finishes 2nd in every single turbo he plays. I mean, I know bigjoe is pretty darned good and all that, but it still seems kind of unlikely.
Include all the turbo's where he busts out in 6th place or something and I think it's safe to say that he probably averages closer to 30 minutes or maybe even less per turbo.

In the meanwhile, I've got to get back into SNG's a bit more I think. The dudes I'm watching heads-up right now are freaking terrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to play tons of turbos, and I play them continously usually over 2 hours session, 8-table average about 10 games per hour, average time per game is about 30 minutes.

[Vedast]

Scotty, has Poker Stars thought about increasing the maximum number of simultaneous cash games? I think doing so would make becoming Supernova Elite easier.
16 would be a good number.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Scotty, has Poker Stars thought about increasing the maximum number of simultaneous cash games? I think doing so would make becoming Supernova Elite easier.
16 would be a good number.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT!

[Scottyy]

What would happen to the current games if players were able to play 16? This must be known before any change would be considered.

Scotty

[NNNNOOOOONAN]

they would slow down meaning stars would make less $$$ per hour per table, but the number of tables would probably increase, so all you would have to do is run some calcs to figure out if your bottom line would go up.

also, the people you would make happier are the people who are going to be playing them most hands and paying the most rake.

the people you will make unhappy by making them deal with shorter games, probably won't really notice as much as you think they would.

AND. i would think that people who actually practice game selection would be happier also because it can be pretty easy for a good player to exploit someone playing 16+ tables.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
What would happen to the current games if players were able to play 16? This must be known before any change would be considered.

Scotty

[/ QUOTE ]

I've actually spent a little bit of time thinking about this.

Everybody likes active games. Good players like them. Fish like them. And Stars certainly likes them. And not just because they collect more rake. It helps make players want to play at your site more.

If playing more tables has a big effect on game quality, I don't think it would be good for anybody.

But if Stars did indeed extend the maximum number of tables from 12 to 15 (or 16), how many (presumably good) players would/could play more? I think it would be relatively few, but I'm not certain.

Looking at it from another angle, Stars currently allows unlimited SNGs and MTTs. What is the effect of this policy on those games? I don't think it's very different than if the maximum were 12. Very few SNG players can actually play much more than this while remaining +EV (there are some such as Space Gravy and Rain Khan back in the day).

Another point that I've made previously is that playing 12 tables of 6-max is certainly not the same as playing 12 tables of full ring. I think it's extremely unlikely that many 6-max players are playing this many. And I doubt the very few that can and do really have much of an effect on the overall game quality.

My conclusion is that I'm really not exactly sure how it would affect the games. It's certainly worthy of discussion.

[1p0kerboy]

Scotty,

here's something that you guys might want to consider.

Some of the games on Stars don't exactly draw a lot of players and oftentimes are difficult to keep running. Specifically I'm referring to the non-hold 'em games such as Omaha, Stud, and HORSE.

Perhaps not counting these games against the table max would be good for Stars, as those wanting to extend their table max could help keep these tables going.

[xmbs]

[ QUOTE ]

Some of the games on Stars don't exactly draw a lot of players and oftentimes are difficult to keep running. Specifically I'm referring to the non-hold 'em games such as Omaha, Stud, and HORSE.

Perhaps not counting these games against the table max would be good for Stars, as those wanting to extend their table max could help keep these tables going.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea of playing 12 tables of HE and then trying to add a few of Stud or Omaha really does boggle the mind I have enough trouble playing a load of cash games and then adding the odd tournament on. Still I suppose if people want the option......

For whatever it’s worth in a general sense I agree that if the option of playing 12 6 max games is there, as it is, it does make sense to allow people to play more full ring tables should they wish to, because the impact per table at FR is obviously lower.