Why aren't Stars $35s popular?

[KCW12]

There are always a ton of $27s and $60s running on Stars, but very few $35s. Why is this? I guess the rake is a bit higher, but I don't know if that explains it all.

[eurythmech]

They're ridiculous in comparison to the 27s.
Who'd have a higher winrate in the 35s?

I could understand if they were 37+3, but 32+3 is just bad.

[KCW12]

Yeah I guess that's true, but even taking into account the regs who care about rake, I would think there would still be lots of casual players who would play them. It seems like if you took away all the regs, the 60s would still run more often than the 35s. And with so few regs playing them, wouldn't the 35s tend to be softer relative to the buy in?

[Fishing2do]

it seems that every 33 type buyin is less popular. Same goes for PartyPoker's 33s, and FTP $36. At both sites the higher buy-ins @ ~$55 get more tourneys running.

What eurythmech says though, the rake difference is your reason to avoid the $35. No matter how bad the players at the $35, if you got a chance to get a couple of "free" ROI percentage points.. Take it!

[DannyOcean_]

Yeah but at FTP, the 55-5, 33-3, 22-2, and 11-1 all have the same rake. No reason for the rake to impact how often these games run.

[TruFloridaGator]

I've had discussion with someone at Stars before about this. The game was created because we want it. I think we can squeeze it to be a 33+3 out of them if we want to, it's simple as a huge multi petition/e-mail. However, I just don't think the fish all of a sudden start playing unless the regs go crazy first. I'd like to see this level be popular, but it's probably just too close to the 27s.

Would they make more money by making the 60s a higher level like 77+7ish and then an inbetween 40-50ish level?

[AMT]

they would make more money with non obscene rake I would think.

[drzen]

I think it's psychological.

25 is a quarter in American money. If you play four, that's a hundred bucks. A night's fun?

Well, that and that the 27s fill quicker, so players have learned to gravitate to them. It reinforces itself over time: a virtuous circle if you like.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
I've had discussion with someone at Stars before about this. The game was created because we want it. I think we can squeeze it to be a 33+3 out of them if we want to, it's simple as a huge multi petition/e-mail. However, I just don't think the fish all of a sudden start playing unless the regs go crazy first. I'd like to see this level be popular, but it's probably just too close to the 27s.

Would they make more money by making the 60s a higher level like 77+7ish and then an inbetween 40-50ish level?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I don't play that high, but when I do, I'd much rather go from 27 to 43 than up to 60. Shift the latter to 65 and that sounds really good.

[AMT]

I dont think stars should or would ever change the 60s, itd have to be something else. they run the risk of the huge population of 60s players getting pissed off and switching to sites that do maintain their buy in (and yes, many people adhere stringently to playing their buy ins). dont fix what aint broke. theyd, again be better served in lowering the rake or making it a 40 dollar level IMO.