Stars T$/W$ System and Satellites

[illini43]

They have no problem with filling up the Sunday Million or matching any of their other guarantees, so why change a working system?

Running a ton of satellites generates more rake, so it is in the sites interest to run more satellites. I mean, they rake the satellite entries, then a portion of the sat. seat or t$ is going to rake anyways, so it's a win-win for the players who sat. in (discounted buy-in for bigger tourne) and for the sites (more rake).

[professormike]

i definitely like your idea, i just dont think stars will change it without a need to

[jgunnip]

I'm unclear as to why exactly you think running a lot of satellites is bad. Having sats to specific events makes it much easier and simpler for the majority of satellite players who are playing for a seat into a tournament. I think if you took this away and implemented a must play rule sats would get much less traffic, big tournaments would get fewer players, and stars would make less in rake. With the variety that they currently provide it makes it easier for players to qualify for an event since they can choose which satellites they like and suits them best.

With the way stars does $T and $W sats to different types of tournaments need to be distinguished and imo, most people that sat into a $W tournmanet play it and don't sell their seat for $W as most players don't understand how they work or how to go about selling them.

If all sats were for $T you'd still need to have different games for the different types of wcoop events.

Also if you don't include sng or the sunday million ds sats that run 4 times/hr there are generally only 7 or 8 sats/hr, including fpp sats. You're 30/hr mark is way off.

Variety is good, for the players and for the site. I would play at FTP much more if they didn't have a must play satellite rule.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Variety is good, for the players and for the site. I would play at FTP much more if they didn't have a must play satellite rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

Although I must say I'm registered for three WCOOP events that I really have little intent on playing because I plan on eventually selling the W$. So there's probably a point to be made that Stars' lack of a 'must-play first seat' rule keeps some donkey money like mine out of big events, too. On the whole, though, I think the current W$/T$ model is best for a wide variety of reasons.

[BadgerPro]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the number one thing I've been wanting to see for awhile now. This will make the satellites softer and the tourneys softer, which will be good for fish and sharks alike.

It will stop people from being able to just grind sats soley to make T$/W$ and sell it as they will at least have to play their first entry. Taking at least a few of the better players out of some of the sats.

It will force everyone to play their first seat making the tourneys easier.

It's never really made a lot of sense to me why you don't have to play your first seat. It seems like this would be the standard.

[dmk]

jgunnip,

See badgerpro's comment as it is exactly what i'm saying

[TomHimself]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

[MJBuddy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the number one thing I've been wanting to see for awhile now. This will make the satellites softer and the tourneys softer, which will be good for fish and sharks alike.

It will stop people from being able to just grind sats soley to make T$/W$ and sell it as they will at least have to play their first entry. Taking at least a few of the better players out of some of the sats.

It will force everyone to play their first seat making the tourneys easier.

It's never really made a lot of sense to me why you don't have to play your first seat. It seems like this would be the standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said in my post, if you run into a scheduling conflict with the tourney, you lose a few hundred dollars. This would make me less inclined to play sats unless I KNEW I was able to make the day. If I was even unsure, I wouldn't take the risk.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
jgunnip,

See badgerpro's comment as it is exactly what i'm saying

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with both you and badger pro, but:

"It will stop people from being able to just grind sats soley to make T$/W$ and sell it as they will at least have to play their first entry"

Sat grinders obviously don't want a "must play first seat" policy [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] -- and most importantly, because satellites are profitable for Stars, and the 'target' tournaments like the Sunday Mil are well-populated and seem to always meet their guarantees, there's no real impetus for Stars to change their system.

If high stakes players really want donkeys and satellite grinders flooding the big Sunday tournaments, then I think the real impediment to that happening is that Stars allows players to make T$/W$ transfers to other players for cash. I think the "must play first seat" policy is a step in that direction (that direction = making the high stake tournaments with feeders softer), but I doubt Stars really wants to disrupt the current system all that much since it seems to keep the money moving and the sats populated, etc., which invariably means more rake for Stars. I think Stars benefits so long as their player's money (be it cash, T$/W$, etc.) is as liquid as possible. Take the WCOOP sats for instance: if I win a sat to a WCOOP event, why lock me into $525 or $1050 tournament that's a month or more away, when I could have that money now and continue to play with it, generating rake and keeping their games full, etc.

So while I see your/Badger's point, unless there's some angle I'm missing here that would really benefit Stars by changing their policy, my suspicion the current paradigm is here to stay.

[Noir_Desir]

The obvious solution is to give out a token which can be used a 215$ or 530$ tourney or whatever the satellite was to. You dont have to play the next one, but you have to play.