|
On December 16 2010 16:45 dittie wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Thanks for the advice Mr. Impossible.
I do plan on bringing a monthly fee to poker. And BTW: This is already being implemented into poker rooms in the US because the poker community has made it a point to show how a table running 24 hours per day takes over a million out of the game per year. Meaning, some doofus has to come drop a million in order for the first person to start making money.
It's incredibly arrogant to think that something can't be driven down when multiple people are making hundreds of millions of dollars.
You're welcome. The reason they take flat fees in casinos has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they feel like they're making too much money. Do you realize how asinine that sounds? It's easier than doing a percentage rake for the dealers and it speeds up the game which is already incredibly slow. In many cases it's larger than the amount of rake you'd end up paying, especially if you're a tighter player. Over the course of an hour in a normal casino @ an 8-9 handed table, you might play 15 hands. At most casinos near me, you pay a $10/hour seat charge. If you're playing at ultra low stakes like $.50/1 you'd almost never average paying $10/hour in rake.
I never said it couldn't be driven down. I simply implied that if you *could* take in $500 million a year and you decide to be "nice" to the players and only make $1 million, you're a fool. So many sites try and fail because they don't have the capital to advertise like Full Tilt and Poker Stars and they can't attract big name players. There was even a site that had literally no rake whatsoever (done by Dutch Boyd I believe). Look how that turned out. Good luck getting Negreanu or any household name to leave Poker Stars and come to your site when your goal isn't to make money, it's for the "love of the game".
|
If the fish don't understand how substantial the rake is (and they don't) then it won't affect where they play. The pros will play where the fish play.
|
Flat fees would be silly, rake works fine. You're essentially paying a "tax" on pots you win. Also, rake doesn't really affect fish as much as it affects people who actually sit down to make money. Fish win their pots based on luck, so if they walk away from the casino a winner, it's usually with a substantially higher amount of money than what they walked in with. A fish will never say "I came in with $100 and I'm up to $120, but this table is playing very tight so I don't see there being any EV+ in me staying here, so I think I'll leave."
Most fish enter a casino and leave broke, so rake doesn't affect them. Rake only affects a good player who's playing over the loooooong term. If you profit on multiple occasions over a long period of time, rake is going to affect that profit. Rake does not, however, affect you if you walk in and go bust over and over and over and over again.
BUT I DIGRESS, comparing poker to SC2 in terms of how much money you can make/lose to rake is invalid. There is much less variance in SC2 and much less luck involved. The comparison I use for my example is only valid in-so-much as how I would like to set up the buy-in and pay-out structures, not how much money a person can expect to earn in the long run when comparing SC2 to Poker. The whole concept of a "fish" doesn't really exist so much in SC2.
|
You should respond to this answer in your OP:
While it may be true that the world's best players win all the small $5.00 tournaments, would you also consider the possibility that the reason for that is because there aren't a very large number of tournaments that happen everyday and thus someone with large amounts of free time on their hands could actually attend a large amount of these small tournaments?
Think back to your "SC2 isn't poker" argument and ask yourself, who would win most of the poker money if poker never had small house games and that the only poker players you would ever play against are online and tournaments only happened every few hours instead of every few seconds?
Sure, I can log onto a poker website and go to a sit-n-go, chances of me running into a pro practically zero. However, SC2 isn't like that because of skeptics saying no to cash buy-in tournaments.
The reason why SC2 has "pros" dominating the tournaments is because there is not enough tournaments. We need to fan the flames. Face it, there are tournaments out there that have 0.25cent buyins right now and winning $5.00 for 4 hours of my time in a ro32 isn't worth my time. There already exists tournaments that "aren't worth the Phil Ivey of SC2"'s time. If this gets any bigger, we can snowball it into something LIKE poker (even though, lets not kid ourselves, nothing will ever be that big for a while).
Poker started out the same way SC2 did, except it was way back then. No online shit, tournaments were won by the few pros because there only existed a few tournaments. Well no-shit, if I was the best at something and there were only 2 conventions a year that paid out any sort of consolation, I'd be attending them too. The same can't be said if there were more events than there were hours in a year.
The bigger this is the better. Skeptics should burn.
|
I agree with a lot of that, Sinatra, but if tons of tournies were to pop up, it would still be for pitiful sums of money. $50 tournies now being won by all the pros is almost as lame as tons of $50 tournies, where some noobs can win, but you still need to finish first or second in a ro64 just to cash.
|
I think it'd be a very good idea for Blizzard (from a company perspective) to have almost a "gambling" part to the game, where you can wager real money (while Blizzard keeps 10% or something like that) against people you know or even randoms.
Frankly it'd be morally terrible but it'd make Blizzard tons of money. Likewise Blizzard could even host tournaments on B.net with buy-ins...
|
On December 14 2010 14:12 Steven.Bonnell.II wrote:
A lot of people have been shooting down the parallels I draw between Poker and Starcraft because Poker has an element of luck involved in it that's entirely absent from Starcraft. While this is true, I believe it to be irrelevant to my example. I only used poker as an example because it's a sport where a lot of people with a huge range of skill can compete, and, due to the way buy-in structures work, almost ANY person who knows how to play, and practices hard, can earn money at SOME level.
I believe with different buy-in levels for Starcraft 2 tournaments, this same result could be achieved. The better the player you are, the higher in buy-ins you will trend to. The noobier you feel, the lower the stakes you would be comfortable playing. A bronze player will not enter a $200 buy-in because he knows he's simply throwing away his money, but an S Class, 2-time GSL champion will not enter a $5 buy-in tournament because he doesn't want to see someone of a much lesser skill win more money in a higher buy-in.
Actually it is completely relevent. You NEED a very large pool of losing players willing to donate and keep the system going. Without the luck factor that you have in poker, this pool will be much smaller. Very few bronze players (the majority of the SC2 population) will be willing to throw away even $5 regularly when they have zero chance of winning. A system like poker MIGHT work, but it will be very fragile without this base and I think it will still mostly rely on sponsorship money to keep it together. Even online poker is somewhat fragile at the moment with the legislation (not only in the US) preventing the fish (the BASE) from playing.
|
You do need a large number of losing people contributing in order to have big winners, I understand that. But I think it's easy to come up with that large number. People paid $60 for the game and people in America pay anywhere from $40-$80 a month for an internet connection. People pay $25 for pizza + drinks, $30 for movie tickets/concessions, etc...etc...there's tons of money people spend on entertainment, so why not $10 for a tournament where there's actually a chance to earn a return?
Online poker is nowhere near fragile at the moment.
|
There is literally NO chance to have a return for the vast majority of people, that's why. Very few people are going to regularly pay $5 to get face-smashed in 2 games (in a Bo3) vs. some random player when they can get that for free on the ladder.
|
blizzard hold the rights to you making money out of there product, readup on the agreement you've agreeded to when you purchased the game, (back of book)
|
Variance attracts fish. Anyone can play heads up against Ivey for a couple hands and have a 20% chance of coming out on top, but how many people could honestly say they've got a 20% chance to beat Idra, even in a BO1? Being outskilled in starcraft isn't fun, and without lower skilled players willing to give away their money for fun and the experience, the gambling system simply doesn't work.
You shouldn't be comparing starcraft to poker so much, there are lots more useful parallels to be found with regular sports. Other non-gambling sports like football only allow high-skilled players (ie the top 0.05%) to earn money, why should SC be any different?
|
On December 17 2010 13:51 m1LkmaN wrote:
Variance attracts fish. Anyone can play heads up against Ivey for a couple hands and have a 20% chance of coming out on top, but how many people could honestly say they've got a 20% chance to beat Idra, even in a BO1? Being outskilled in starcraft isn't fun, and without lower skilled players willing to give away their money for fun and the experience, the gambling system simply doesn't work.
You shouldn't be comparing starcraft to poker so much, there are lots more useful parallels to be found with regular sports. Other non-gambling sports like football only allow high-skilled players (ie the top 0.05%) to earn money, why should SC be any different?
In the original post, I wrote:I understand there are some boundaries to initially setting this up. Paying $10 for tournies where you have almost no chance of winning is discouraging. But if these tournies continue for a while, ideally the best players would be playing in better tournaments. It's the same way with poker today. Negranu and Ivey and Hellmuth don't play in small stakes because it's a waste of time for them. They'd much rather play in the larger stake games. If there were a lot of money in Starcraft 2 games from people paying to enter tournaments, the $5 and $10 tournaments would receive no interest from top players. They would be playing in the $25, $50 and $75 tournaments.
One reason I haven't been responding to a lot of posts is because the points have already been addressed in the OP. Please don't bother repeating them if you have nothing new to bring to the table about them. =\
|
On December 17 2010 13:51 m1LkmaN wrote:
Variance attracts fish. Anyone can play heads up against Ivey for a couple hands and have a 20% chance of coming out on top, but how many people could honestly say they've got a 20% chance to beat Idra, even in a BO1? Being outskilled in starcraft isn't fun, and without lower skilled players willing to give away their money for fun and the experience, the gambling system simply doesn't work.
You shouldn't be comparing starcraft to poker so much, there are lots more useful parallels to be found with regular sports. Other non-gambling sports like football only allow high-skilled players (ie the top 0.05%) to earn money, why should SC be any different?
Personally i think its a great idea because the people that stand no chance in making their money back or gaining money wont even bother registering, where as the people that do tournaments commonly and actually have skill will make their money back and have it be a high end tournament every time. and don't use poker terms where they don't fit please.
|
On December 17 2010 11:58 Steven.Bonnell.II wrote:
I agree with a lot of that, Sinatra, but if tons of tournies were to pop up, it would still be for pitiful sums of money. $50 tournies now being won by all the pros is almost as lame as tons of $50 tournies, where some noobs can win, but you still need to finish first or second in a ro64 just to cash.
That's why you make a deep prize pool, where the top 25% of players cash. Weaker players will still cash often enough to be satisfied, and they'll get the adrenaline and experience of playing in a real tournament. I think these tournaments also need to be double elim, to give as much replay to the weaker players as possible.
|
64 player tourney idea. $5 buy in. Single elimination till Semi-finals.
$320 dollars total $32 in rake $288 prize pool. 1st place $66 / 2nd $36 / 3rd $20 / 4th 8 dollars / Round of 8 (losers) $7 / Round of 16(losers) $6/ Round of 32 (losers) $5
64 players with an initial 4 player pool stage ( like World Cup). That way you get to play 3 games at least, that way newer players don't get one and done'd by a difficult draw. Then if you get out of that stage into the tournament you get your money back.
The point of this tourney isn't to make huge pots but to give a small venue for newer less experience players to play under pressure and learn, while getting a good chance to make their money back.
And if people who are super afraid of pros sweeping tourneys, there can be multiple tourneys held at the same time, so Pros would most likely head to the higher money tournaments.
Note: Not all possible angles have been covered by my short post.
|
al lot of people think that the pros will win all the money. I would say that there would possibly be enough interest that the pros would never enter every tounrament ... not even close to (as long as the tournament starts when there are enough players). Just as in poker u should just pay 10 dollar and then be able to play 9 tournamenst with it. Also there are post that I really like that say the following: when u win the first round u earn ur moeny back and after that u slowly earn more and more money ... the number one wouldnt get as much as when only the top three win but it would let people keep playing for money and have a lot of fun with it as well :D
|
Lol I love day9's opinion of starcraft2/poker comparison. Poker u can get lucky on the river with a 1 outer. In starcraft when you're dominating and winning a game, 20 ultralisks don't suddenly pop up out of nowhere. lollll
|
I know how to play Hold 'Em....barely. I live in Las Vegas, and I've considered paying a $40 buy in to play in one of the sit and go tournaments in, well, any random casino. I've never done it, but I would have no problem paying $5-$15 to participate in a SC2 tournament, provided there are some restrictions as to who can play.
It would be scary as hell to play against a WSOP winner, but you could still POSSIBLY win because the game has a luck factor involved. I'll tell you right now, I would not pay $0.01 to play in a tournament that HuK is playing in, because I will never ever ever ever ever win and it would be a waste of money.
I like this idea though, as I think it's very progressive and moving our E-Sport in the right direction. I think we some guidelines and restrictions put into place, this kind of idea could be very productive and really encourage more players to participate competitively. As far as discouraging top players from participating in low-tier events, that idea works well on paper, but it may be different in practice.
|
On December 18 2010 05:15 vitriol wrote:
64 player tourney idea. $5 buy in. Single elimination till Semi-finals.
$320 dollars total $32 in rake $288 prize pool. 1st place $66 / 2nd $36 / 3rd $20 / 4th 8 dollars / Round of 8 (losers) $7 / Round of 16(losers) $6/ Round of 32 (losers) $5
Yeah, I feel that payout is a little too deep and too top-heavy, though. There's basically no difference between 32nd and 4th place. My thoughts were more like...
Top 16 payout:
60/40/25/25/15/15/15/15/10/10/10/10/10/10/10/10 = $290
If you really want to pay out to the top 32:
40/25/18/18/11/11/11/11/8.../5... = $289
|
In High school i played poker with friends. We had 10-20$ buy ins all the time. Not sure why like 33% of people said no unless they are like dirt poor. I had a part time job and was still able to afford it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
