Dear Lee Jones; Volume II

[ansky451]

Ehhhhh, Party isn't really better anymore. Stars has 800/1600 now, and there are quite a few more levels late on.

At final tables on party the avg M is way lower than stars, and still can be something of a push-fest even shorthanded and heads up.

Oh yeah. Also, uncap the blinds.

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah. Also, uncap the blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

[MrBrightside]

well, my #1 is move to a dead button. I posted a poll about it results were not overwhelming, but most wanted it.

Almost as big a deal to me, however, would be a flatter payout structure. I think the 20% is an attempt, but a poor one. I don't care about getting a few dollars when finishing 200th in a 1000-person tourney. I do think that 65% of the prize pool going to the final 9 is ridiculous. I guess the 20% structure is flatter as well, with 45% of the pool to the ft. but I would ditch the 20% and just flatten the money a little among the 10%.

[La Brujita]

Agree at final table but if you play the 215s side by side the money is much deeper at party as you progress pretty deep into the tournament, by a significant factor.

Unfortunately Party then becomes crap at end.

[mshalen]

fantastic idea

[McMelchior]

Mr. Jones, regarding the 20% pay out structure please DON'T LISTEN to the posters above.

20% pay out is one of the best initiatives lately to keep tournament poker profitable for us, that belongs to the vast majority of mediocre players.

20% outs is a great incentive to keep everybody playing - a chance for even the most inexperienced (poor) players to cash just once in a while and keep it interesting for them to continue buying in.

20% tournaments are a great initiative to keep the tournament poker expanding with a rate high enough to make it profitable for more than the top 5% - 10% of the players.

Who ever don't like them still have a ton of 10% tournaments to buy in to.

LET'S KEEP THOSE 20% PAY OUT TOURNAMENTS - PLEASE

Best,

McMelchior (Johan)

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
Almost as big a deal to me, however, would be a flatter payout structure. I think the 20% is an attempt, but a poor one. I don't care about getting a few dollars when finishing 200th in a 1000-person tourney. I do think that 65% of the prize pool going to the final 9 is ridiculous. I guess the 20% structure is flatter as well, with 45% of the pool to the ft. but I would ditch the 20% and just flatten the money a little among the 10%.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

I like the fact that 15th place is a meaninglessly small prize.

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
Agree at final table but if you play the 215s side by side the money is much deeper at party as you progress pretty deep into the tournament, by a significant factor.

Unfortunately Party then becomes crap at end.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes I've noticed this as well about the higher buy ins. But the regular 100s on both sites are just better on stars.

The supers however have 20 minute levels, which is way better than the stars 150s.

I wish UB had more players + not such a horrid interface (obviously a matter of opinion). Their structure for the 100s is ridiculously good. Actually ridiculous.

[MrBrightside]

I just don't get this... I play a 2000 person, $10 tourney.. for 10th place, I would get $100. (10-18th get .50%). For 6ht place, I would get $480. So I beat out 1990 people, I get 10x my buy in, but If I beat out 1994 people, I get 48x my buy in?

Incidentally, it's absurd that 10th -18th in a tourney of 2000 people get the same amount (plus, it makes for more hand for hand play, which is frustrating).