Stars VIP Wild speculation

[xmbs]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not opposed to a compromise. But if this were to happen, the freeroll seats would still be worth less money than they are now and that is something that everybody would have to accept.

[/ QUOTE ]

and why for what feels like the ten thousandth time does everyone take it as given that Stars can not/ will not/ should not increase the amount they spend on the promotion corresponding to the increase numbers of Supernovas. Also since the discussion here overlaps with the other recent thread it's worth sticking a link in.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ue#Post12341488

[NewGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Is today inaccuracy day or something?

[ QUOTE ]
and will be disappointed at going from ~$4,000 in EV to under $1,000 annually.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 50k is worth about $50 at this point. AFAIK, Stars wasn't planning on increasing the pp for next year. As they have stated, the prizepool was sufficient for about 1000 players (which it is currently drawing). So this is $2600 in value annually, NOT $4,000 as you stated. Also, I don't think they will be getting rid of the smaller freeroll(s).


[/ QUOTE ]

No, but maybe it's "I'm so cranky anyone who disagrees with me must be wrong on all points" day?

The freerolls are worth $50/week NOW, they were worth closer to $100/week earlier in the year. An average of $70-$80/week for 2007 is a reasonably good ballpark guess. 52 x $75 = $3,900.

Whatever Stars may or may not have privately stated their intentions were, they gave out approximately $3,500-$4,000 in EV for anyone who played all the Nova freerolls this year.

I hardly think it's worth debating this more, but it seems fairly clear to me that the few hundred SuperNovas who played in most of the freerolls (and determined their EV to be close to $4,000) would be quite disappointed to only be offered bonuses totalling < $1,000 in 2008. (I'm already aware that you are not part of this minority, so there's no need to again point out that you and most SuperNovas would prefer to receive a bonus.)

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
The freerolls are worth $50/week NOW, they were worth closer to $100/week earlier in the year.

[/ QUOTE ]

*Sighs*

This is just a plain lie. Fortunately, I did play most of the freerolls this year so I can set the record straight.

The first 50k I played was January 13th and it drew 727 players (I keep meticulous records). This tournament was worth $68.78. On February 3rd, the 50k drew 830 players for a value of $60.24. Last week the value slipped below $50 for the first time this year.

This tournament was never worth "closer to $100/week earlier this year".

[ QUOTE ]
An average of $70-$80/week for 2007 is a reasonably good ballpark guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. This tournament has not been worth $70 at all this year. This is a horrible ballpark guess.

[ QUOTE ]
I hardly think it's worth debating this more, but it seems fairly clear to me that the few hundred SuperNovas who played in most of the freerolls (and determined their EV to be close to $4,000) would be quite disappointed to only be offered bonuses totalling < $1,000 in 2008.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said before, I played in most of the freerolls. I played in them even though, frankly, I don't care at all for tournaments AND I hate having to sit at home in front of my computer on Saturday afternoons. I'd rather be out enjoying the day, but I don't want to give everybody else my EV. I'm willing to take less value to free up my Saturday and to keep me from having to sit through these silly things. And I don't think I'm in the minority. And I'm saying this even though YTD I've cashed >$1000 in them.

[Henry17]

At this point I'd vote for nothing rather then the freerolls simply because it would annoy the people who want to keep them. I can't stand it when people make erroneous arguments in an effort to defend a position they hold completely out of self-interest.

[Losing all]

[ QUOTE ]
At this point I'd vote for nothing rather then the freerolls simply because it would annoy the people who want to keep them. I can't stand it when people make erroneous arguments in an effort to defend a position they hold completely out of self-interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems the people complaining about the current setup (too busy or important to play) are looking out for #1 as well. That's understandable though, they're busy and important.

[Henry17]

Not really. Saying everyone should have the exact same thing is not self-interest. It is an argument based on fairness. For example if we did a thought experiment such as Rawls' original position (which is designed to remove self-interest) the even distribution would be the one arrived at.

[1p0kerboy]

I sent the following e-mail to Stars today:

_______________

Hi.

I'm a Supernova VIP member and should surpass the 500,000 VPP point this year.

I would really love the opportunity to reach Supernova Elite next year and I've been crunching some numbers.

I have an issue with the maximum number of tables that can be played. The current limit is 12. This applies to both 6-max and full tables. The problem is that 6-max tables get many more hands in per hour than full tables. So in a sense, this promotion is tailored towards 6-max players, which isn't really fair.

I think PokerStars should take this into consideration when they are setting their table max limit. Perhaps a fairer solution would be to allow a maximum of 10 6-max tables and a maximum of 15 full ring tables. This would ensure an equal amount of hands (and hence an equal likelihood that the players would act quickly enough not to slow the action down).

As it is now, 6-max players can play over 1,200 hands an hour while full ring players can typically only reach 800. Who do you think is more at risk to slow the games down?

An easy way to do this is to allow 15 tables max, but count each 6-max table as 'one and a half'.

By the way, this is only one item of several that is currently being discussed in a thread in the 'internet forum' on 2+2 by Stars VIP members. Scottyy, one of your representatives, is always extremely helpful and open to our considerations and he may have already presented this topic to whom it may concern over there.

I hope that at a minimum my thoughts here might get some consideration.

[Alobar]

im very glad none of you are in charge of the VIP program

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At this point I'd vote for nothing rather then the freerolls simply because it would annoy the people who want to keep them. I can't stand it when people make erroneous arguments in an effort to defend a position they hold completely out of self-interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems the people complaining about the current setup (too busy or important to play) are looking out for #1 as well. That's understandable though, they're busy and important.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not to fond of the current setup. And I'm not too busy or important to play. In fact, I am currently playing them.

Hopefully you can see that many are looking out for others in this as well. What about the players in other countries such as Australia or Europe who, because of the time frame, simply can't make it? I see that you don't mention them. Probably because YOU are looking out for #1?

LOL at the hypocrisy.

[MicroBob]

pokerboy1 - I would bet a good deal of money that Scottyy is not the only Stars rep who has seen this thread or is still reading it.
Scottyy himself said that they have employees whose duties include scanning message-board discussions like this one.
I believe they don't jump into every one of them so as to let the discussion continue amongst the participants less inhibited or influenced by them.
And they are not going to always say, "we're considering it" because it will be lead to let-downs more often than not when they decide it just isn't a good idea for them.

So I don't think your e-mail to Stars was necessary. I may be wrong on that but I'm pretty sure that whoever needs to know about the thread are already well aware of your feelings.

When I make a post on 2+2 about Stars I always assume that it's pretty much the same thing as directly telling Stars my opinion.