Stars has STEPS SNGs to the PCA

[BlueBear]

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, collusion is more difficult to detect and more difficult to prove, because in satellites even innocent strategy can appear rather odd (for example, folding despite huge pot odds).

[/ QUOTE ]

Extremely true.

[dougmanct]

Jeff,

Thanks for watching and considering the suggestions from the player base. I definately appreciate it.

I agree with the large chorus of folks wanting a somewhat level playing field in the top steps as opposed to having to contend with 5-6 sharks with enormous bankrolls playing every step 6. I also understand the business reasons why Stars may not want to lock them out with a "one package per account" rule or a "no buying direct to step 6" rule.

I propose a middle ground which I think is fair to EVERYONE interested in the steps series from the little fish to the biggest sharks, and I can't imagine it would cost Stars much at all except for perhaps a few hours of a support rep's time...

...a rule allowing a player to exchange 6 step 6 tickets for a PCA package. Stars wins: it gets another player entered into Stars' sponsored event : this is great for Stars. It gives another player a major they can play in and some good word of mouth publicity. The sharks can continue to grind step 6's to their hearts' content for their $W12K.
I can't imagine Stars' cost per ticket exchange request would be more than a few minutes of a service rep's time, or the same amount of time it takes them to do whatever admin work goes with processing step 6 winners. I have to think it's +ROI for Stars.

So what do you say? I think you'd hit a home run with that rule all around, as it's clear to me people are already trying the strategy of building up collections of higher level tickets for future use/speculation. Go with the flow!

[Big DP]

[ QUOTE ]

I propose a middle ground which I think is fair to EVERYONE interested in the steps series from the little fish to the biggest sharks, and I can't imagine it would cost Stars much at all except for perhaps a few hours of a support rep's time...

... a rule allowing a player to exchange 6 step 6 tickets for a PCA package. Stars wins: it gets another player entered into Stars' sponsored event : this is great for Stars. It gives another player a major they can play in and some good word of mouth publicity. The sharks can continue to grind step 6's to their hearts' content for their $W12K.
I can't imagine Stars' cost per ticket exchange request would be more than a few minutes of a service rep's time, or the same amount of time it takes them to do whatever admin work goes with processing step 6 winners. I have to think it's +ROI for Stars.

So what do you say? I think you'd hit a home run with that rule all around, as it's clear to me people are already trying the strategy of building up collections of higher level tickets for future use/speculation. Go with the flow!

[/ QUOTE ]

Second this idea!

Let's hear the love!

[chesterboy]

hey stars I really love this structure. I don't play tournaments or on stars much but you will get my business with these!

I would really like you guys to restrict people from winning more than one of these. If I am lucky enough to make it to a step 6 I would prefer to not play a bunch of high stakes sharks.

Would be good for you guys too, way more total players representing stars.

Maybe you could make it so that if someone has already won one, they can't enter, and have to either use their ticket for a cash sng or a wsop sat once they are running?

Would make it much more fun for the bulk of your players.

[chesterboy]

The sharks that are grinding these are just playing for cash anyways, so no harm in sticking them in forcing them to play cash SNG's instead right?

Maybe make a cash version of this too, that grinders can grind to their hearts content.

Pretty pretty please.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Satellite-format tournaments are inherently more susceptible to collusion than tournaments with a laddered payout schedule.

The reason should be obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

could you please elaborate? It is not obvious to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Take my word for it (or not). In this particular case, posting details is not going to be of much help to innocent players but it might help cheaters.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised by this because the part of poker I have had the most success ROI-wise is satellite poker. I don't know if I just adapt to it better than others or what, but it would seem if collusion was prevalant in satellites my ROI would be worse.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said collusion was prevalent in satellites, merely that satellites are more susceptible to collusion.

[99killed]

we were ITM -top 4- in a step and the chat was disabled for everyone. weird. never saw that before.

preventing collusion?

[WutRUTryin2Hit]

[ QUOTE ]
we were ITM -top 4- in a step and the chat was disabled for everyone. weird. never saw that before.

preventing collusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I think so, Stars turns off chat in MTT satellites too quite a while before the bubble, it's a good policy. I've been in sats on FTP where chat is not cut off and people are so bad, they say stuff like "hey if our table all checks down every hand, we all get a seat" and stuff.

[Henry17]

Preventing spontaneous collusions such as calling out a hand or agreeing to check down with someone. People doing actual collusion wouldn't use the chat feature.

I have seen that before but not sure on what site.

[M.B.E.]

I am talking about premeditated collusion, where (for example) two friends in the same tournament are on the phone discussing how to play their hands.