PokerStars homepage
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cashing at a loss.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cashing at a loss.

    For a couple weeks now i've been playing the adjusted $0.10 and $0.25 tournaments. They used to be straight up with no buy in fee but now with 1cent and 2 cent reg fee respectively.

    As a microstakes player with small bankroll i've recently noticed a problem with the prizepools. Sometimes in the $0.10 tournaments the bottom prize is only 10 cents. Without the reg fee that's ok as it's breakeven but now with the reg fee it's a loss.

    It's great to see more 25 cent tournaments and the new 75 cent tournaments as i can play more now but when i cash 4 times in one day and make a loss i can't help but feel utterly dejected.

    I know it's only cents but the whole idea of cashing to me is an achievement with a reward. not a loss. It's worse than the bubble spot to be honest.

    I hope Pokerstars can review the pay structure and either thin the payout spots, or tweak the % structure, so that we can at least break even at a min cash.

  • #2
    Hi

    Thanks for your post, but i think it best if you email support@pokerstars.com

    They are the only ones who can help you with this

    Good luck.
    Moderator

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi wiltshireman.

      I have already messaged pokerstars with my concerns. I posted in here to raise the issue and hopefully draw the attention to the problem and get other users messaging in with their own complaints.

      Whilst a complaint is a complaint i tend to find that the more complaints of the same problem they get, the faster they get around to fixing or changing things.

      Works in life too

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi
        couldnt agree more,but i have to say that if there is some sort of technical issue, Pokerstars techies are usually able to sort things out quite quickly once they are made aware of any problem.
        As you say sometimes several voices seem to create a quicker awarenes and action.

        Good luck.
        Moderator

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by thephoenix11 View Post
          For a couple weeks now i've been playing the adjusted $0.10 and $0.25 tournaments. They used to be straight up with no buy in fee but now with 1cent and 2 cent reg fee respectively.

          As a microstakes player with small bankroll i've recently noticed a problem with the prizepools. Sometimes in the $0.10 tournaments the bottom prize is only 10 cents. Without the reg fee that's ok as it's breakeven but now with the reg fee it's a loss.

          It's great to see more 25 cent tournaments and the new 75 cent tournaments as i can play more now but when i cash 4 times in one day and make a loss i can't help but feel utterly dejected.

          I know it's only cents but the whole idea of cashing to me is an achievement with a reward. not a loss. It's worse than the bubble spot to be honest.

          I hope Pokerstars can review the pay structure and either thin the payout spots, or tweak the % structure, so that we can at least break even at a min cash.
          Hi phoenix,

          More than the 1 and 2 cents rake on these MTT's now where you're seeing a bigger loss of value in simply cashing them is the removal of the added money they used to have ($50 for the .10's and $100 for the old .25).

          What that added money did was effectively add the equivalent of 500 players contribution to the prize pool in the .10's and 400 to the .25 whom didn't actually exist and the prize payouts were bloated accordingly.

          In the .25 alone you could oft times get a 50-65% return on your investment for just making the lowest min-cash level. I know as this was a tournament I played 4-5 times a week when US players could play for money here. That number for a min-cash has come down quite a bit now. Same with the .11's...tougher to turn any kind of profit in the new,non bloated prize pools for cashing at the lower levels than it was.

          If I can make a suggestion you may find yourself better served by playing the .10 360's and the .25 45 and 90 man SNG's as your bankroll building plays and leave these,and all MTT's for that matter,to the single minded pursuit of playing them with nothing as an intention but trying to run deep and make FT's. The simple truth is that no matter the structure it's difficult to the point of nearly impossible to turn any kind of long term profit by simply making the min-cash levels in MTT's.

          Comment


          • #6
            For clarity the reason I suggest those SNG's is that they still have some elements of MTT play to them,especially the 360's,but give you a much better return on just min-cashing alone than the MTT's would. And once you get a handle on them you should be able to cash at a higher frequency than you would the MTT's. That's the nature of the two structures,but keep in mind that even though the payouts in SNG's are more balanced than MTT's (which are more heavily weighted to the FT and top 3 spots in particular) the real money in them is also at the top spots.

            Hope this was helpful and GL out there.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Moxie Pip View Post
              The simple truth is that no matter the structure it's difficult to the point of nearly impossible to turn any kind of long term profit by simply making the min-cash levels in MTT's.
              Absolutely 100% correct!umbup: John (JWK24)
              Super-Moderator



              6 Time Bracelet Winner


              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Moxie Pip View Post
                Hi phoenix,

                More than the 1 and 2 cents rake on these MTT's now where you're seeing a bigger loss of value in simply cashing them is the removal of the added money they used to have ($50 for the .10's and $100 for the old .25).

                What that added money did was effectively add the equivalent of 500 players contribution to the prize pool in the .10's and 400 to the .25 whom didn't actually exist and the prize payouts were bloated accordingly.
                Ok i understand what you are saying, but, weather and added money, guarenteed, or a straight up prizepool tournament, you should not recieve less than the buy in + fee for making the money. You wouldn't see it at the EPT or WPT so you shouldn't see it on stars.

                Ok now to clarify a couple of things.

                1) i have a bankroll each for mtt's, stt's and cash so i am already playing all 3 styles of play.

                2) i at no point said i was trying to profit from min cashing. I don't in any way shape or form see min cashing on a regular basis as a profitable way of playing poker. I only said that min cashing should at least breakeven on your investment. My sentiment is that it should hold a lil profit. So cashing in a 10 cent tourney that costs 11 cents to register, in my view, should have a min cash value of 12 cents.

                I'd also like to point out to Moxie Pip that with the inflated prizepool comes inflated prize payout positions. The prize payouts should either be reduced in number or a couple % of prizemoney should be clipped from the top to bring the bottom up to scratch.

                Thanks for the feedback though it's interesting

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by thephoenix11 View Post
                  I'd also like to point out to Moxie Pip that with the inflated prizepool comes inflated prize payout positions.

                  Hi thephoenix,

                  The number of entries paid in a tournament is determined by the percentage of the field to be paid. The added money does not increase the number of entries paid; it increases the amount that each place is paid. However the percentage of the field to be paid is decided by PokerStars.

                  Check the tournament info tab in the tournament lobby while it's registering. This will show you how the increasing number of entries affects the percentages paid to each place (top prizes percentages are reduced as the field increases.) Although not specified, you can estimate the percentage of the field paid by the range around 100 (or 1000 in a larger field.) Exact payouts can only be confirmed after registration closes, of course.

                  Hope this helps.

                  Joss
                  2 Time Bracelet Winner


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thanks

                    Hi joss.

                    I Take on board what you said and indeed i have looked at the payout structure.

                    Specifically i have looked at the structure for the $0.11 tournaments. I believe that it is a 20% payout but the 20% applies to the top of the bracket.

                    So with between 4951 and 5400 entries you get 1080 players paid. But 1080 is 20% of 5400 players so if there is 4951 entries exactly you are still on 20% payout but because of the large bracket it is inflated slightly. Not much good with working it out but it probaly ends up to between 22 and 23% or so if you follow.

                    This means that place 1080 pays $0.9902 which is rounded up to $0.10 for 4951 entries whereas if there were 5400 entries exactly the % payout would equate to $0.108 which would be rounded up to $0.11.

                    If the tournament was a regular payout of 10% then bottom place would get more. Also if the payout gaps were smaller then the difference would be so great.

                    Places 721 to 1080 are paid 0.02% which in a field of 4951 is just below 10 cents. an increas of just 0.001% takes it to just over 10 cents. rounded up that's 11 cents and breakeven. and increase of 0.003% would take it to just over 11 rounded up to 12 cents which would be profit. Now 360 %0.003 would mean taking 1.08% of payout from the higher tiers. It's a small adjustment which means a dejecting loss can be a small profit.

                    I'm terrible with explaining things but i hope you can see what i'm saying here. I'm not trying to be greedy i just think that a cash should mean a profit whatever the stakes. I'd rather see a small pay zone or win a fraction less at the final table than cash at a loss after over an hours hard work.

                    Thanks for pointing out my error though

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by thephoenix11 View Post
                      You wouldn't see it at the EPT or WPT
                      I think most big live mtt's pay roughly 10% of the field... that's why you don't see it.

                      When you are paying 15-20% of the field, you can run into this problem. I think paying more of the field is probably better for the long term liquidity of mtt's (more weak players get some payout back and thus don't bust their rolls as quickly or lose morale as quickly). To still pay 20% of the field and level of this effect, they would have to take the money off the top mostly, which I'm not sure would be a popular decision... certainly the regs don't want the payouts diluted any further, but even the recreational players are dreaming of the big score and the less big those scores become, the less appeal for them is my guess.
                      Head Live Trainer
                      Check out my Videos

                      4 Time Bracelet Winner



                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I see what you mean. It's frustrating to cash at a loss though and i'm sure a tiny tweak could make it at least a breakeven but i do get where your coming from.

                        It's just my way of seeing it and as with all things there are many views to take into consideration

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X

                        X Cookies Information

                        We have placed cookies on your computer to improve your experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.