Stars VIP Wild speculation

[Scottyy]

Crazy idea question

If we had bonus VPP tables, would you play them? Example 4-8 limit/nl tables where the top rake taken was $3.50. $3.50 drop would equal 3 VPPs.

Scotty

[Henry17]

Would this be at the same % of rake but just with a higher max rake?

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
Would this be at the same % of rake but just with a higher max rake?

[/ QUOTE ]

If so...interesting. I'd probably support this as it would probably mean that it would take me about 200 fewer hours to reach SNE next year, and this is probably worth the net $5-7/hr loss in my win rate.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Crazy idea question

If we had bonus VPP tables, would you play them? Example 4-8 limit/nl tables where the top rake taken was $3.50. $3.50 drop would equal 3 VPPs.

Scotty

[/ QUOTE ]

Would these be shorthanded tables or full ring? (Or both) I can't really see where you are going with this, as far as what purpose it would serve for Stars or the players (I'm sure there's a reason that we haven't been clued in about yet). When you say 4-8, are you referring to [$4/8] OR [4-8 tables]?

Either way, I think the players would be losing out on this deal pretty bad.

Say we play 100,000 hands where the extra rake is taken and we receive an extra 1 VPP. Say there are 8 players at this table. Each player would have to pay an additional $6,250 in rake. They would accumulate an additional 350,000 fpp (if they are SuperNova at 3.5x) which is worth $5,250 (using .015 as the rate). Over the course of these 100,000 hands, each player loses $1000 that they otherwise would not have.

The extra $1000 that Novas would pay (others would pay much more) might be worth it to some who would get to Elite quicker.

But it wouldn't really benefit anybody else.

[Tryptamean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would this be at the same % of rake but just with a higher max rake?

[/ QUOTE ]

If so...interesting. I'd probably support this as it would probably mean that it would take me about 200 fewer hours to reach SNE next year, and this is probably worth the net $5-7/hr loss in my win rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

how many hours do you expect it to take?

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would this be at the same % of rake but just with a higher max rake?

[/ QUOTE ]

If so...interesting. I'd probably support this as it would probably mean that it would take me about 200 fewer hours to reach SNE next year, and this is probably worth the net $5-7/hr loss in my win rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

how many hours do you expect it to take?

[/ QUOTE ]


1100-1200 hrs under current points system.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Crazy idea question

If we had bonus VPP tables, would you play them? Example 4-8 limit/nl tables where the top rake taken was $3.50. $3.50 drop would equal 3 VPPs.

Scotty

[/ QUOTE ]

Would these be shorthanded tables or full ring? (Or both) I can't really see where you are going with this, as far as what purpose it would serve for Stars or the players (I'm sure there's a reason that we haven't been clued in about yet). When you say 4-8, are you referring to [$4/8] OR [4-8 tables]?

Either way, I think the players would be losing out on this deal pretty bad.

Say we play 100,000 hands where the extra rake is taken and we receive an extra 1 VPP. Say there are 8 players at this table. Each player would have to pay an additional $6,250 in rake. They would accumulate an additional 350,000 fpp (if they are SuperNova at 3.5x) which is worth $5,250 (using .015 as the rate). Over the course of these 100,000 hands, each player loses $1000 that they otherwise would not have.

The extra $1000 that Novas would pay (others would pay much more) might be worth it to some who would get to Elite quicker.

But it wouldn't really benefit anybody else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, consider the fact that these tables would be made up of primarily players going for Elite (which ain't exactly prime pickins) and the decrease in winrate should probably be factored in as well.

[NewGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Crazy idea question

If we had bonus VPP tables, would you play them? Example 4-8 limit/nl tables where the top rake taken was $3.50. $3.50 drop would equal 3 VPPs.

Scotty

[/ QUOTE ]

If rake was taken at the same %, but just with a $0.50 higher max, I'd probably play on the tables some, esp. during months I was feeling lazy and wanted to earn whatever VPPs I needed a bit faster.

$0.50/9 players = avg $0.055 rake contribution, less for players winning a smaller than avg % of these max rake pots. Extra 3.5 FPPs would be worth 5.25-5.4 cents, plus it would take fewer man-hours to reach Nova/SNE. IMO likely a very nice option to have, assuming action was same or better as on "normal" tables.

Edit for pokerboy's post:
Not sure if it would be mostly SNE types, but good point that it would be people chasing VPP tiers so a lower concentration of occasional/recreational players.

If the action was significantly worse, I wouldn't play on them, but I would still support Stars adding the option (maybe even more) since "regular" tables would in theory then be better.

Bottom line:
What would be the downside to Stars OR players of adding them and seeing if they get play?

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Crazy idea question

If we had bonus VPP tables, would you play them? Example 4-8 limit/nl tables where the top rake taken was $3.50. $3.50 drop would equal 3 VPPs.

Scotty

[/ QUOTE ]

What would happen with this idea if the 2nd VPP was awarded at $2 instead of $3? (at a full table, of course)

[wufwugy]

Supernova - 100k VPP - 250% increase
Supernova Elite - 500k VPP - 300% increase
Supernova BOC - 1mil VPP - 400% increase

The gap between the current SN and SNE is just too big, and a 500k vpp increase is great incentive for the tons of SN grinders, for whom hitting SNE is ludicrous, to stay with Stars year after year.

BOC = ballin outa control.