Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites

[dmk]

OK, I have a gripe that I just need to get off my chest. Look at your PokerStars Tourney lobby at any point during the day. Look at how many friggin satellites are running.

Thats a good thing, right? Of course it is. Satellites are excellent.

So whats the problem?

Stars employs a T$/W$ system for their satellites - similar to how the WSOP will have satellites and issue WSOP lammers. Why on God's green earth do there need to be 30+ MTT satellites each hour - not even counting the SNG ones.

If you're going to stick with a T$/W$ system, all you need to do is this:

Have SNGs or MTTs for a certain amount of T$. Simple. There's no need to have specific satellites into 20 different daily events - they all use the same exact currency. The main culprit is the WCOOP satellites running right now. Is it really necessary to have different satellites to each $215 NL event?

Why not just have...

:03 - $2 buy-in, $22 T$/lammer
:13 - $6 buy-in, $55 T$/lammer
:23 - $11 buy-in, $109 T$/lammer
:33 - $22 buy-in, $215 T$/lammer
:43 - $55 buy-in, $535 T$/lammer
etc

Thats all. No need to market them as satellites for certain events if you're not going to force the satellite winners to play them.


What really *should* be happening if you want satellites for specific tournaments is you force play of the 1st seat and then give out T$/W$ for any additional seats (or just cash...), similar to FullTilt.

I just find it pretty annoying. The system is flawed the way it is currently setup. Its similar to the WSOP ME - less fish are going to actually play an event if they know they can simply choose not to play and receive that much in $.


tl/dr = Either run tournaments w/ specific T$ prizes rather than to specific tournaments to eliminate clutter (and to allow the actual SNG satellites to fill up 20x quicker) or force play of the first satellite seat won.

[rothko]

the sats need to be for specific events. fishies don't play sats for T$/W$, they play for an entry into a big tournament where they could win thousands. it's selling the dream.

the only real problem with the system is that there are just too many running too close together.

[dmk]

[ QUOTE ]
the sats need to be for specific events. fishies don't play sats for T$/W$, they play for an entry into a big tournament where they could win thousands. it's selling the dream.

the only real problem with the system is that there are just too many running too close together.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The point is that you should be forced to play the first seat you win.

[whitcolumn]

I've been asking for the 1st seat rule forever.

[rothko]

nope, please reread my post.

[gameplay]

i disagree with the first seat rule. it is better to decide if you wanna play. but i agree that will be better if they are more specific and will fill up faster i think

[whitcolumn]

I agree, if you don't give the Sat. a target, the fish will not play... What is more appealing, "$10 rebuy to Sunday Million" or "$10 rebuy for $215 $T"? I think thats obv.

[zipppy]

apparently the problem with your ideas, dmk, is that no one understands them :P.

I like either the idea of the first seat won being mandatory, or the idea of generic satellite tourneys. Those would fill up much faster and more consistently.

[jafeather]

[ QUOTE ]
the sats need to be for specific events. fishies don't play sats for T$/W$, they play for an entry into a big tournament where they could win thousands. it's selling the dream.

the only real problem with the system is that there are just too many running too close together.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is 100%.

[MJBuddy]

First seat rule fails totally if say:

I win a seat monday and on Friday I find out I have to work sunday. Oops I lose 215 bucks.


I'd be more in favor for tickets that are sellable, but the system right now is more than fine; always improvable, but fine.