1-table S&Gs - your feedback requested

[Daleroxxu]

[Daleroxxu]

as far as I can tell, playing 10 handed STTs wouldn't increase the length of time needed to play each STT by too much and good players would make slightly more profit per game.

[Chipchucker5]

[ QUOTE ]
as far as I can tell, playing 10 handed STTs wouldn't increase the length of time needed to play each STT by too much and good players would make slightly more profit per game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, they really don't seem to take much longer (if at all). There are really no downsides to making these 10 handed, and there are definitely upsides.

[KCW12]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing I can tell you is that the 150/300-25 level is likely to be added soon.

Further question, if you don't mind: what do you prefer, 9-handed or 10-handed... and why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the 150/300/25 level going to be added in between 100/200/25 and 200/400/25, or is it going to replace one of these levels? I think you need to be careful about how much longer STTs will last with the new levels, as well as possibly moving to 10-handed tourneys. My favorite idea is still to get rid of the 100/200 level, move straight from 75/150 to 100/200/25, and add in 150/300/25.

[Daleroxxu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Further question, if you don't mind: what do you prefer, 9-handed or 10-handed... and why?


[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer 10 handed, 4 places pay. 3 places is some sick variance. But 10 handed is better because the game can't support more winning players.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats a good point, look at the 60s and at times there are as many as the same 6 regulars joining each consecutive game.

10 handed vs 9 handed in that extreme case would mean 4 random players per game instead of 3. That has a signigicant impact on the better player's roi.

[Klinzmann]

10-mans are better because the extra seat would most often just put one more fish in the game. If you now have four regs playing the 114s you get those 4 players in every game together with 5 randoms. 10-mans would mean you get 4 regs and 6 randoms.

Also I have to QFT Pudge on the rake issue
[ QUOTE ]
BTW one more thing about rake if you were to make these threads in SSNL/MSNL/HSNL/MTT they would not ask to lower rake, they would ask for structure changes, stuff like synchronizing breaks in MTTs, adding more high stakes 6max games, etc. The fact STTF is asking for lower rake means that it is a serious problem effecting the long term profitability of a games and not just an easy way to save $1 a sng.

[/ QUOTE ]

[DMMx69]

or 4.444 regulars and 5.555 randoms. (and 0.001 of something else)

altho i do think ten is better.

[billybeartku]

[ QUOTE ]
StarsDude,

Can you give us any comments on how seriously our recommendations are taken, whether or not it is realistic to reduce rake, any comments at all about our comments?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really doubt they take our comments seriously. I've heard that many ppl have told them about implementing the bet pot button and they always email back something like "we're working on it" and never seen it implemented.

oh btw, reduce the rake and implement the bet pot button plz!

[billybeartku]

41+4, the rake is too high. how about 46+4?

[bumpking]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW one more thing about rake if you were to make these threads in SSNL/MSNL/HSNL/MTT they would not ask to lower rake, they would ask for structure changes, stuff like synchronizing breaks in MTTs, adding more high stakes 6max games, etc. The fact STTF is asking for lower rake means that it is a serious problem effecting the long term profitability of a games and not just an easy way to save $1 a sng.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand Stars position on the high rake as it's a competetive marketplace and that is the norm rake among the best sites. That being said, the best idea (IMO) is to keep the rake the same so that the fish keep paying it (since they really don't notice the difference anyways), but make the VPPs/FPPs/rakeback MUCH higher (obv just for SNGs). Now the regs have their lower rake and Stars hasn't sacrificed the cream-puff rakes on the fish.

-BK