1-table S&Gs - your feedback requested

[Klinzmann]

10-mans are better because the extra seat would most often just put one more fish in the game. If you now have four regs playing the 114s you get those 4 players in every game together with 5 randoms. 10-mans would mean you get 4 regs and 6 randoms.

Also I have to QFT Pudge on the rake issue
[ QUOTE ]
BTW one more thing about rake if you were to make these threads in SSNL/MSNL/HSNL/MTT they would not ask to lower rake, they would ask for structure changes, stuff like synchronizing breaks in MTTs, adding more high stakes 6max games, etc. The fact STTF is asking for lower rake means that it is a serious problem effecting the long term profitability of a games and not just an easy way to save $1 a sng.

[/ QUOTE ]

[DMMx69]

or 4.444 regulars and 5.555 randoms. (and 0.001 of something else)

altho i do think ten is better.

[bumpking]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW one more thing about rake if you were to make these threads in SSNL/MSNL/HSNL/MTT they would not ask to lower rake, they would ask for structure changes, stuff like synchronizing breaks in MTTs, adding more high stakes 6max games, etc. The fact STTF is asking for lower rake means that it is a serious problem effecting the long term profitability of a games and not just an easy way to save $1 a sng.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand Stars position on the high rake as it's a competetive marketplace and that is the norm rake among the best sites. That being said, the best idea (IMO) is to keep the rake the same so that the fish keep paying it (since they really don't notice the difference anyways), but make the VPPs/FPPs/rakeback MUCH higher (obv just for SNGs). Now the regs have their lower rake and Stars hasn't sacrificed the cream-puff rakes on the fish.

-BK

[darinvg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW one more thing about rake if you were to make these threads in SSNL/MSNL/HSNL/MTT they would not ask to lower rake, they would ask for structure changes, stuff like synchronizing breaks in MTTs, adding more high stakes 6max games, etc. The fact STTF is asking for lower rake means that it is a serious problem effecting the long term profitability of a games and not just an easy way to save $1 a sng.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand Stars position on the high rake as it's a competetive marketplace and that is the norm rake among the best sites. That being said, the best idea (IMO) is to keep the rake the same so that the fish keep paying it (since they really don't notice the difference anyways), but make the VPPs/FPPs/rakeback MUCH higher (obv just for SNGs). Now the regs have their lower rake and Stars hasn't sacrificed the cream-puff rakes on the fish.

-BK

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true. This could be where the leaderboard comes in. The hardcore grinders will get more "rakeback."

[ryanghall]

Darin,

A SNG leaderboard is a very bad idea. Get why?

Ryan

[billxo1b]

[ QUOTE ]
Darin,

A SNG leaderboard is a very bad idea. Get why?

Ryan

[/ QUOTE ]

why? the leaderboards in FT and Party are pretty good.

[blackize]

Sweet jebus no bet pot button.

[sippin_criss]

[ QUOTE ]
Darin,

A SNG leaderboard is a very bad idea. Get why?

Ryan

[/ QUOTE ]

cheaters? why dont u just say it instead of letting us guess.

[Ontario_Tory]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Darin,

A SNG leaderboard is a very bad idea. Get why?

Ryan

[/ QUOTE ]

cheaters? why dont u just say it instead of letting us guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

<---can't figure out why a leaderboard is bad. Pls fill me in...

thx

[vers]

sippin is saying that ppl can share accounts to win ldrboards I think.