1-table S&Gs - your feedback requested

[jetlag99]

- 10xBB SNGs (Everyone starts with 10xBB)
- Max 10% rake
- No ante
- 5-max SNGs

[CheeseMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
bodog payout is a TERRIBLE idea, please stop posting stupid things, I repeat STOP POSTING.

[/ QUOTE ]

[eurythmech]

Playing right now, so this will be a short post.

Why on earth would you want to remove antes?
I think that's a horrible idea.

[futuredoc85]

[ QUOTE ]
ENOUGH about rakes and antes. More imagination please.

Voice off more about changing to hand-based over time-based.

And did any of you even read the comment about new payout structures (in addition to the old ones): i.e. 2.20 buyin, 6-5-4-3-2 payout.

I repeat, NO MORE posts about rakes and antes.

[/ QUOTE ]

lower rake IMO

[Qrawl]

Another thing I would like: level sounds/beeps. At the start of a new level, it would make a beep. The higher the level, the higher the beep.

[CheeseMoney]

I would like you to make your beep volume adjustable, since it is [censored] annoying to hear BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP when I have the volume cranked trying to hear FJ whisper into the mic on one of his ICONS videos.

[DMACM]

i think the rake should be free at very low levels. Stars makes more money in the long run from players who actually have a chance to move up. at 3.4 the turbos are very heavy raked for how few hands u get. i would bet more people end up giving up and quitting as a result. I have played a tremendous amount of online poker 8 tabling 55s etc. and i got started on .01-.02 on UB back when the rake was 0. i realize i might be a little off themark from the question asked but this is the best advice ic an give you.

[DCJ311]

Obviously the #1 issue with SNGs is rake, it's an absolute joke.

Just look at how much money gets spread around at a 25/50 NL table and how much rake gets collected on those 'investments'. A $1050+50 SNG collects over $450/hr which is far more than what they're making in a 25/50 game where there's much more money getting spread around. The 25/50 games will never die out because the rake is effectively so low.

The $555 SNGs and up are dying out and have been for quite some time, because the rake is unbeatable. A SMALL step in the right direction is making these things 10 handed, but still the rake is unbeatable at almost all of these.

The ante structure is fine- the Party structure was better, though. The smart money is in lowering the rake though, the high stakes 16 tablers are willing to pay enough in rake per year to make this change worth Stars' while. Right now I'm shortstacking and pay such little rake per dollar earned compared to when I played SNGs. SNGs are the most profitable way to extrapolate $/hr for a poker site. Do the math and make the changes, I addressed it in a thread linked within this thread.

[LeadbellyDan]

Here's a graph of the Stars rakes for 9-man turbos. Whoever came up with this must have been mental. May I suggest some kind of 1/x curve might be better than the x^3 affair we have here.


By leadbellydan at 2007-11-26

NB Im a bit slow with Excel so the x axis isnt numbered with the actual buy-ins. I used this system:
1 = $3.40
2 = $6.50
3 = $16
etc up to 2190

[DCJ311]

Also to answer one of the questions, why does Stars charge 90x the rake for a $2100 sng compared to a $15 sng. The response I got from Stars was something to the extent of:

" If a player deposits $3000 and wins a $2100 sng then immediately withdraws, the deposit/withdrawal fees affect us a lot more than it would for a lower stakes player to win and withdraw, and makes it nearly unprofitable to offer SNGs. "

Obviously a ridiculous statement for many reasons, since Pokerstars could easily make a requirement that a player has to obtain a certain # of FPPs before being eligible for a 'free' withdrawal. Otherwise stipulate that the player has to incur the cost of the withdrawal himself. This is so standard in the online sportsbook industry, and would eliminate all problems. Also I doubt many people are depositing with the intention of only playing one SNG.

Also, this response shows me that they care more about players who deposit once or twice, rather than long-term customers. Otherwise why would they punish us by increasing rake to compensate for the deposit/withdrawal fees of SNG 'win-quitters'?
Furthermore, this example is basically the same as a guy taking $2500 to a 25/50 NL table, running it up to 10k, and immediately withdrawing. The odds are about the same as placing in the top two of a 9 player SNG. The only difference is in this example he will pay vastly less rake per hand.

BTW I do not have a problem with MTT rake since the rake/hand is way better than in a SNG.