$10 a person or $100 a game
Hey guys,
I was wondering if we should go back to the $10 a person a game deal like in the first season.
We could do it now as the first game had 10 players and the $100 was taken out (which would have been the same as $10 a person).
The reason I have been thinking this is that the game is really $40 plus $10 for the final instead of $50 with $100 coming out of the pot.
In larger games (with more then 12 players) the $100 a game means more money for the final prize pool but in smaller games (less then 12 players) the $100 a game can be pretty steep. Where in the $10 a person the “juice” is the same percentage wise.
I still think we should have the 4 game min. but if we go $10 a person that means every one that played their 4 games can play the SET no top 16.
The last SET only had 14 players and if it is the same this season as the last we will most likely will have around the same number for the SET.
At $10 a person this would also mean a large prize pool for the SET $100x12 games = $1200, where $10x12games x 14 players = 1680. (For the last SET we decided to juice the pot by putting an extra $50 each into the prize pool and we can do that again if we wish.)
Thoughts?
I was wondering if we should go back to the $10 a person a game deal like in the first season.
We could do it now as the first game had 10 players and the $100 was taken out (which would have been the same as $10 a person).
The reason I have been thinking this is that the game is really $40 plus $10 for the final instead of $50 with $100 coming out of the pot.
In larger games (with more then 12 players) the $100 a game means more money for the final prize pool but in smaller games (less then 12 players) the $100 a game can be pretty steep. Where in the $10 a person the “juice” is the same percentage wise.
I still think we should have the 4 game min. but if we go $10 a person that means every one that played their 4 games can play the SET no top 16.
The last SET only had 14 players and if it is the same this season as the last we will most likely will have around the same number for the SET.
At $10 a person this would also mean a large prize pool for the SET $100x12 games = $1200, where $10x12games x 14 players = 1680. (For the last SET we decided to juice the pot by putting an extra $50 each into the prize pool and we can do that again if we wish.)
Thoughts?
Comments
in other words if you only played in the min 4 games, to play in the SET you would owe $80.
If we were to go back to $10/player/game, the SET would cost each player $10 per game missed...basically, if you attend all games, you would get a freeroll into the SET game. Miss one game, your buyin is $10, miss two, $20, and so on and so on.
I have no issue with going back to the old way. Juiced up the pot quite well, and the four game minimum would be adhered too. We would still award points to determine the season champs, as well as equal bonus chips for the SET.
Like usual I won't vote, but whatever the majority decides will be the direction we take for the season.
I'm probably gonna be a perfect example since my work hours will change and I'll aim for the 4 games min or more but pay the $80 to enter the Set game.
AJ - I think you should have a say in league matters. Never really understood your stance of not voting on issues like this.