Stars VIP Wild speculation

[_dave_]

[ QUOTE ]
-----Wasn't sure Stars was following this thread

I'm guessing over a dozen people from Stars have read this thread. We debate the issues everytime something interesting is posted.

Major changes, like the max tables for ring, are made slowly. We wouldn't want to make a major change that would then need to be corrected at a later date.

Please keep posting your ideas,

Scotty

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] PokerStars

[MicroBob]

They would not be losing even that much though.
If they were to strangely keep the same $50k freeroll type structure then there is no way they will be worth as much in 2008 as they were in 2007 because so many of those SN's will carry over into next yr.
The players who lose their SN status should be made up for and probably outnumbered by the new Stars players who crank it up right on Jan 1 and race into SN-land pretty quickly.

Also, it is pretty unusual for somebody to have actually played EVERY single freeroll. There's a difference from playing in 'most' of the freerolls vs. playing in 'all' of them obviously so that should be taken into consideration too.

[NewGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
They would not be losing even that much though.
If they were to strangely keep the same $50k freeroll type structure then there is no way they will be worth as much in 2008 as they were in 2007 because so many of those SN's will carry over into next yr.
The players who lose their SN status should be made up for and probably outnumbered by the new Stars players who crank it up right on Jan 1 and race into SN-land pretty quickly.

Also, it is pretty unusual for somebody to have actually played EVERY single freeroll. There's a difference from playing in 'most' of the freerolls vs. playing in 'all' of them obviously so that should be taken into consideration too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. But I think most SuperNovas would expect that as the number of SuperNovas increases, the total amount Stars budgets for freerolls and/or bonuses would go up correspondingly.

I agree no one likely plays all 52 weeks, but I think the concept of giving people the option to "earn" as much of the EV as is worth it to them (in terms of balancing free time vs EV) has some merit, no?

[MicroBob]

Some merit. But 2/3 of the SN's do not play the freerolls at all according to Scottyy from an earlier post.
That should tell you that even at one of the best times they could find that would be convenient for the most players possible the freerolls still aren't that attractive to many people apparently...otherwise more would play them.

They work out pretty well for me though. I get to play almost all of them.
And if they really will increase the amount of EV per player or the total prize-pool or whatever you want to call it then I'm definitely all for it. Works awesome for me and strangely I had kind of neglected the idea that surely they would increase the $50k freerolls if they decided to keep them because of how many more players are in them now.

So if they really jacked-up the prize-pools then I would certainly be in favor of keeping the freerolls for my own selfish reasons.
But if they are going to keep them the same and it's just going to be more and more players then $17/wk in cash vs. $40/wk in freeroll value isn't a huge difference and I would be cool with the cash.

[Alobar]

bob, Im retarded. I forgot min rake is a dollar at that level, so I was thinking 6 handed getting a point at .50 cent rake.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, you win- I'm convinced your records are accurate and it was closer to $3,000 in EV not $4,000. (Minor point- I believe there was a stretch in July-August where there were <700 players but that doesn't change the overall figures much).

I will now be slightly less disappointed if Novas lose over $2,000 of freeroll value (instead of $3,000) if Stars switches to tiny monthly bonuses for 2008.

[/ QUOTE ]

there was a tourney with 689 one of those weeks
I chopped as the chipleader

other one I 'won' two weeks later had 800+

the freerolls suck
I despise them
they piss me off to no end

I've cashed over $15k in them this year, but I hardly ever play them

If I wanted a scheduled event on the weekend, I would've gotten a [censored] job

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
(Minor point- I believe there was a stretch in July-August where there were <700 players but that doesn't change the overall figures much).

[/ QUOTE ]

$50,000 VIP
7/7/07....702 players
7/14/07...698 players
7/21/07...712 players
7/28/07 ..818 players
8/4/07....750 players
8/11/07...793 players
8/18/07...800 players
8/25/07...854 players

[Henry17]

[ QUOTE ]


Nice [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

I guess all of the arguments made to switch to monthly bonuses are made purely out of altruism and generosity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Although I'd say more fairness then altruism and generosity. I happen to play most of the freerolls. I don't really put much effort into them but over the year I'd make more with freerolls. The same is true for 1p0kerboy. I just don't believe that I should be rewarded because someone else can't play at a set time.

[ QUOTE ]
that there would be a significant nuber of Novas disappointed in losing $2k+ in EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

By significant you mean 150-200 on the high-end. Only 400-500 SNs bother to play the freerolls so the other 1800 obviously would be happier with something else.

Also it is not a loss of EV. The EV was never yours. The extra EV that you think you are losing actually belongs to the the 1800 SNs who are not present. If every SN played in the tournament the EV would be less then the bonus.

[ QUOTE ]
There was a debate in some thread a while back where someone said they were disappointed that Stars would pay cash to winners of WSOP sats / WSOP seats bought with FPPs rather than giving a non-refundable seat to the tourney (i.e., they did not WANT the option to take the cash). Dozens of 2+2ers called this guy a moron, not too many defended him. I was with the minority who got where he was coming from- I like having the occasional tourney you have to PLAY rather than having an option to turn the seat into cash value. To each his own, you don't have to agree to accept there are other valid points of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is because wanting to be forced to play makes no sense. Unless you have a wife / Gf / 3rd party preventing someone from playing they can still buy a seat.

The only other argument is maybe the entry fee is such a significant utility to the individual that he can't bring himself to risk it. People like that shouldn't risk it.

More options are always superior to less options. The argument that someone wants to be forced to take option A because otherwise they wouldn't have the courage to do it is not an argument. It is an admission of a character flaw.

[berya]

Scotty,
A while ago I remember you posted something about FPP store prices being revisited in September? Anything going on on that front. The TV prices and other electronics are out of whack currently.
thank you

[NewGuy]

[ QUOTE ]

By significant you mean 150-200 on the high-end. Only 400-500 SNs bother to play the freerolls so the other 1800 obviously would be happier with something else.


[/ QUOTE ]

991 played Saturday, not 400-500.
Edit: Bob correctly pointed out Gold/Platinum qualify too. I checked the tourney results and it appears that 145 Gold/Platinum earned their way in, so only 846 SuperNovas played this week.


[ QUOTE ]

Also it is not a loss of EV. The EV was never yours.


[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. If people are given or receive or earn ~$3,000 in EV that "isn't theirs", and then the program is subsequently modified to give them <$1,000 in EV the next year, they will be disappointed. This is human nature.

People who receive a bonus of worth $x in one year, and are told that it is a bonus, but then receive a bonus of 1/3 x bonus the following year will not care if it wasn't "their" money.

Many who play in the freerolls will think along these (apparently flawed) lines - "I will receive 2/3 less than last year. I would have preferred to receive the same or more as last year and am disappointed".


[ QUOTE ]

The argument that someone wants to be forced to take option A because otherwise they wouldn't have the courage to do it is not an argument. It is an admission of a character flaw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Judgmental, much?