1-table S&Gs - your feedback requested

[RexWoo]

* I don't care if there are antes or not, really

* the jump from BB200 to BB400 is probably too brutal and the one from BB200 to BB200+ante probably too soft.

* the 32+3 (I think) SnG level is a joke and nobody plays on it. Something like 37-40 + 3 would be much better

* I think having 10 players / table would be better than 9

[z32fanatic]

Keep the antes. I think you should make all the SNGs 10 man, because it will increase the regulars' win rate, which will make them play more.

If you want to stop the stalling at the high stakes, just stop PokerinPb from using whatever program he is using and everything will be fine.

[z32fanatic]

FWIW most people are saying go back to Part structure because the SNGs were so much softer back then. The structure wasn't the reason they were so soft, it was more the players and possibly the fact that they were 10 handed. Another thing you could consider is increasing the starting chips to 1750 or 2000, which might work.

[George Lind III]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to stop the stalling at the high stakes, just stop PokerinPb from using whatever program he is using and everything will be fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are quite a few people stalling lately who are not named poker_in_pb. I prefer not to name names but I will say that something really needs to be done about it. It is getting to the point where people anticipate 4 hands ahead of time how much they need to stall so the blind will go up when it's their button.

[George Lind III]

Love the idea of using Party's hands per level structure instead of minutes per level. The stalling has gotten much worse lately.

Please please please do not get rid of antes. I personally like the idea of changing the 100/200/25 to 150/300/25 but it wouldn't be that big a deal really if no one stalled.

Also I prefer the 10 mans to the 9 mans but really I don't care that much either way.

And yeah like everyone else said the rake is ridiculous. Your volume in 500s & up must be about 10% of what it was 8 months ago.

[billybeartku]

lower the rake for sng regs' sake plz. the 32+3 turbo is a joke. I would like to see a good lvl between 25+2 and 55+5 turbo. and change 25+2 to 28+2, 55+5 to 56+4 or stuff like that. The rake has been too high for us to beat the game. lower the rake and find a good lvl between those 2 would be a good idea.

[JoeSchmo]

Agree with others that suggest switching the 100/200/25 level to 150/300/25. And/or possibly dropping the 100/200/0 level altogether.

Also agree that hands per level would be better than timed levels.

[fluorescenthippo]

players should start with 2000 chips, make the blind levels a tad shorter like 4 minutes, and add a 150/300/25 level. also make the antes slighty bigger at 200/400

[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]

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.