Waited 45 mins for a game to fill , ended yup deregistering . Something needs to be done to promote these soon.
4 Likes
I registered for 2 last week. Waited and waited, finally gave up.
4 Likes
End of the month thing? I noticed a while back that once everyone near the top of the leaderboards finished with their max games, the lobby dried up. It picked up again when the next month’s board started. Lots of ways to increase traffic in these games but most require tweaking the leaderboard designs, IMO. There are too many conflicting forces at work in the SnG arena.
1 Like
That for sure is part of the problem…thanks for pointing it out [rolls eyes ] 
2 Likes
Well, if traffic was moving slowly through an area, before I’d talk about widening the lanes or adding a byway, I would probably suggest getting the dead horse out of the middle of the street. May be obvious but still needs to be addressed.
1 Like
… first look at basic numbers over a long period of time. It isn’t slow in LO; in fact each month for the past few years it has attracted 7K. It isn’t slow in MED; in fact each month for the past few years it has attracted 2K+. HI, on the other hand attracts only 4H on average. ELITE does not have a Leaderboard.
LO offers 4 different buy-ins. MED offers 3 different buy-ins. HI offers 3 different buy-ins. ELITE offers 3 different buy-ins.
It isn’t HOW MANY buy-ins because they all have at least 3 choices. Or does it? Why do 7K players go to LO, 2K players go to MED, and 4H go to HI?
The answer is, in part, that there is no obvious equalization. The distribution of the buy-ins needs to be adjusted so that more players go from MED to HI, a lot more players need to go from LO to MED, and the LO should attract fewer players and also bring in new players.
It would seem to me that if we could attract 1500 players to HI, 3500 players to MED, and 5000 players to LO, the distribution will help build each level correctly.
To do all this, I think you need to step up the buy-ins uniformly in LO, MED, and HI, and create a huge gap and a special color to ELITE.
The above is what I believe needs to be done in general. Now here are my opinions on certain aspects:
-
I think the 250K buy-in needs to be put in ELITE. 100K is high enough for 10,000 players who come to play.
-
I think the bonuses offered need to top off at 1M for HI, 800K for MED, and 600K for LO.
-
I think that 90 games, and 120 games per month should go down to the same 60 games per month as HI now enjoys. In this way, because of the rule change when you hit the maximum, it will force people to either play at a higher level, thus pushing the LO players to MED and the MED players to HI.
Once these things are equalized and distributed correctly we will more active time and less inactive time.
My best,
Scratch
2 Likes
You are making a huge assumption about the number of games people will voluntarily play and that they will move to a different leaderboard after they max out on the one they are on. What if people are only playing 120 / 90 / 60 games per month now because they have to (as opposed to want to) in order to place on the leaderboards? If this is the case, then reducing the number required would actually reduce the total number of games played.
As always, you have great insights and ideas. I’m simply not sure this is the starting point though. I would totally revamp the leaderboards so they aren’t in conflict with standard play because I see them as a limiting force, not a helping one. After all obstacles are removed, then the site could start tweaking promotions, buy-ins, formats and so on to make the games more appealing to more players.
As a bit of an aside - I have been playing SnG’s online for cash now for a little while and they seem to be odd birds all over the place. Some sites have “standard” 9 or 10 seat 1 table games with 10 minute blind levels etc but “standard” is no longer the most common. I’ve had to search for the formats I like best across several sites. Also, real money sites keep introducing variations and gimmicks to the SnG lobbies to actively market them to new players. Spin and Go’s, Turbos, Sit and Go 2.0 are just some examples.
SnG’s are indeed popular but they are very much a niche part of the overall market. As with most other games, attracting new players takes effort and imagination. Some of us are traditionalists and like what we like and will play them as long as they are offered. Some people multi-table grind out a living playing them this way. Others move on to cash games or larger tournaments after building bankrolls. New blood has to be constantly recruited to fill the lobbies.
Also to note, higher stakes SnGs do not fill immediately on real money sites either. Depending on where you are playing and what time and what stakes, you can wait a decent while for a full table to fill. Not so with lower stakes that fill nearly immediately most of the time but its not just here where there is a drop off in play as the stakes increase.
Its a interesting problem but one that I believe is absolutely solvable here, since it is being solved on real money sites. Its going to take some work and some changes but IMO, would be more than worth the effort.
Best back at ya my friend.
1 Like
You make a good point. But certainly 60 games a month is much easier and is a different standard than both MED and LO. Maybe with the freer time players will step up; I am sure a portion will. Maybe with the freer time the players will step up to MED. Maybe, indeed, they will discover new games they like. Finally, maybe they will take their wives or husband and go to the movies. I don’t think you can ask a lesser (presumably) player, to play twice as much as a HI player and 50% more than a MED player.
Alternately, why aren’t you arguing that HI and MED should be playing 120 games per month? It seems to me that the criteria for playing should be equal for all. Maybe make all three levels should be playing 90 games per month. MED is now at 90, LO would get a 30 games break, and HI will need to go to 90, which is where it was when it started, and it had more players to the tune of about 500 players per month.
Whatever is decided I think they should all be equal requirements as this change would almost assure a better distribution.
Scratch
So Scratch, I like your train of thought but I do see a faw. You are going under the assumption that most of your SnG players are there only for the leaderboards. So you are wanting movement in ranges where the real pool of new players aren’t up to yet and don’t play. You have " Leaderboard chasers " out there as well, that will play anything, as long as they get those free leaderboard bonuses. … sooo segwayyyyy…
Part of this rolls back to the battle “ave of” “best of”, part of it is movement between buyin levels, part of it is ppl understanding a 9 ppl SnG is the #1 way to build bankroll, part of it is advertizing… Warlock’s right, you revamp the Leaderboards ( and I think not just SnG ) so that they no longer are in conflict with the games.
I look @ Ring, and you see activity taper off as the buyin levels increase… but I don’t see any micro level SnGs, whereas in Ring you can have 100 5/10 tables going , when most of us are playing at far higher buyin levels. MTTs aren’t really in a better boat here than SnGs, but most of thier leaderboards are on “best of” , so yeah those players just pile on the games…
I’m used to low level SnGs closing in under 1 minute… thats a vibrant and sustainable playerbase level. Either get current players playing more, or grow a whole new crop of SnG players thru promos and micro lvl tables… Once ppl understand they can safely move up bankroll thru SnGs they will migrate all the way up thru Elite Stakes.
The Halloween 1k SnGs aren’t closing as fast as you’d think, considering that the promo is on total points, so play ur butt off should be the rule of the day, and doesn’t seem to be…
Its great to see meaningfull dialogue , ohh and another post while I am writing… must read…
Sratch, its my guess staff is going by # of people that can realistically afford to be playing those levels, also skewed by basic participation by those who can afford it… as to why its 120,90,60 , but then same thing in MTT the higher ya go, the fewer best of it is between stake levels…
So maybee its the approach to Leaderboards that is the weak link as Warlock said, and others in other threads have, iono really I do see a pretty happy medium (almost) what was achieved for say Jewel Leagues… but there are nothing like that for SnG… just the basic Lo Med Hi, thats why I suggested alot more things for SnGs like they have for MTTs… There’s an adequate amount of stuff for MTT players to bounce around between promos in, but nothing for SnG players like that, so you’re right Scratch, they play thier 90,60,120 games then wait till next month or got play ring or MTTs…
Sassy_Sarah
@Scratch - I don’t have any interest in equal distributions or fairness or leaderboards. I’m coming from a simple place where if games are interesting, exciting and available, people will play them. IMO, as things stand, they are being undermined by the leaderboard scoring being in conflict with pure ROI play. Many people don’t know about or care about the leaderboards - probably most of the players in those lobbies don’t. Therefore, I suggest starting with the simple and then moving on from there.
Now this is only a theory based on my experiences and on anecdotal evidence from players I’ve spoken with. Still, I think it makes sense. It would be my hope that through eliminating the absurd incentive to fold for half an hour before starting play that the games would become more interesting and playable to the majority of players. More interesting and more exciting means more players in my book.
After the 1st step, I’d think about how to get people interested in higher and higher stakes. Format is where I’d start with here but before anything else, I believe the games need to be restored to how they play pretty much everywhere else. That means getting rid of the double bubble that is created with the leaderboard scoring system. Just my opinion.
1 Like
@Warlock,
I might have burned alot of bridges in the process, but that bubble is scheduled to be eliminated come Jan 1st now… we’ll see … you still will have people playing just for the leaderboards and ppl playing for fun or ROI that will be in conflict a bit less tho…
The longer I play Warlock, the more just playing isn’t so attractive, new formats/promotions pretty much fix that… unless I just wanna sit down with a few ppl and play cards, but thats soooo rare here…
I just don’t wait 30 minutes for a 10k SnG to start… period… ppl talk about ROI, what about ROTI ( return on time investment )… the total time includes waiting for it to start. So if currently you can’t get a 1k to fill in less 1 minute, lower the stakes untill you do … again tho this works in Ring, cause there’s no darn Ring leaderboards…
I didn’t know they had decided to modify the SnG leaderboard format. When was that announced? Nice to hear though and if it is done properly, I think there will be some impact. If the ROI players and the leaderboard players have the same incentives by virtue of points aligning with payouts, then the conflict should be resolved. Lets see what happens.
I’ve mentioned before that I had the good fortune to work with some of the best people in the gaming industry early in my career. Its not a simple business and the amount of thought and work that goes into every little decision is enormous. The efforts to get people to come and play never cease and once they have you there playing, the efforts to keep you there and move you up in stakes begin. While this site isn’t a casino, I believe the same basic principles and techniques could be made to accomplish the same results here. Almost certainly the techniques used by real-money poker sites could be modified to work here.
Before this thread started, I had asked what the site was looking for in terms of “further developing SnG’s”. More games? If so, which ones? More players? Players playing more games? More general knowledge of SnG’s and the strategies involved? Modifications to the leaderboards or promotions? I didn’t see an answer so I kept quiet for a while. Since the thread became active again, I thought I’d try again to see if there is anything I can offer to help the players and the site.
1 Like
Warlock… the 50% finishing rule is going away for Pts… The jist I got was for all Tournaments, that would include SnG, if they only do it for MTT, that will be a cry’n shame. Is that not the bubble you were referring to ??
(edit) I bounced last ( 1st one out ) in a Halloween SnG and got points, I was shocked, maybe its being integrated somehow sooner for SnG, iono
Well thank you for bombing out dead last in order to find out this piece of information. That’s dedication!
Yes, this was the bubble I was referring to.
No problem Warlock, seems I’m good @ take’n 1 for the team…
But seriously, I have only the Halloween SnG’s selected, only ones registering… and I get that same 'ole annoying super-lag, if I touch the SnG lobby… When I only am asking to see 3 registering SnGs , there’s no way it should be laggy, but even 1 showing, and I get the super-lag.
Its not there on teh Ring or MTT lobbies… so , possible problem, heck yeah.
2 Likes
Warlock, if you look closely… the Halloween SnGs no NOT, I repeat do NOT qualify for monthlies/yearlies in any way, therefore it was possible to implement this chg within this promotion.
1 Like
I just hopped over there to see if I’d experience the same thing and yes, it is really laggy. I’m on a blazing fast gaming machine and don’t experience lag anywhere else I go but the SnG lobby is nearly freezing up on me. That cant be helping to attract players.
1 Like
nope
The wait it toooo long !!! 20 minutes ??? pfffttt
1 Like
I concur !!!
2 Likes