What is a reasonable vig on higher stakes SNGs?

[M.B.E.]

In the last few days PokerStars has been offering Turbo NLHE one-table SNGs at $105+9.

Is $9 vig too high? The turbos do not take as long to play, on average, as the regular SNGs, so shouldn't the vig be a few dollars less?

For that matter, shouldn't the vig on SNGs be less than the vig on MTTs with the same stakes?

[t_perkin]

I am sure that they would argue that they are using the concept of taking a percentage of the money being staked rather than taking money for the time you spend sat at the table.

Both concepts fall down at some point.

Taking a percentage of what is staked works fine except at HU, where the rake would become too large (hence lower rakes for HU at most sites).

Taking money for the time you spend sat down does not make sense either. Otherwise the rake would be huge at relative to the game at low buyins/stakes and tiny relative to the game at high buyins/stakes.

So basically the vig is like selling any other product or service: it is whatever people are willing to pay.

Rake will come down when the number of new poker players starts to settle down.

Tim

p.s.: I have never played live but I am told that the vig online compares very favourably with B+M.