open All Channels
seplocked Events & Gatherings
blankseplocked ♥ ♦ Eve Online Hold'Em ♣ ♠ -- Non-stop Tables Running 23/7
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

Mildeliane
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.05.06 22:56:00 - [91]
 

Originally by: bwill220
Originally by: Selene D'Celeste

The only exception to the above rates are 250m buy-in games which are 262m (250m pot, 15m rake) which are slightly above 5%.


Quoting before Selene can change it.

Welcome to D'Celeste math, where 250+15=262.


We should probably start calculating how much rake money the banker gets to keep like this.

Kresh Vladir
Black Omega Security
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.05.08 21:34:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: Covenn
Edited by: Covenn on 05/05/2008 18:58:22
Typical online STT payout structure for 9 players is 50%/30%/20%.


Hey Covenn,

as someone (Selene) might allready have pointed out we have had 3-way payouts earlier but we changed it cause alot of our players didnt like, personally i dont like it either and ill try to explain why, please tell me if there are any other way around it that i havent thought of yet.

What do you do if there arent 9 players?
You have to start paying out to more than the winner at some point
and thats where it gets tricky.

Ill use and easy example that someone suggested:
1-3 players winner takes all
4-5 players 60/40 split
6-9 players 50/30/20

That means if we have 10mil buyin (just cause its easy to calculate for me):
5 players buyin, winner would get 30mil, 2nd would get 20mil
6 players buyin, winner would STILL get 30mil and 2nd place would get 18mil

Its hard for me to explain to players why they get the same ammount of isk (or even less isk if they come second) for beating more players and this is what it all comes down to in the end.
If you buyin to a Sit n go tourney on any real money client they start when the table are full, thats why they can have theese kinds of payout structures.
Since we often play tables that are NOT full the "standard" payout tables doesnt work.
This is my oppinion and i know its not shared by all of the players or by all the other bankers but its a matter we talk about very often and until we can agree on another way of doing things or until all tables we start are allways full im having a hard time seeing how we should change it.

Thanks for reading and like i said, im gratefull for feedback on this matter, convo me ingame if you want to talk about this furter of if you just need help overall. This goes for everyone.

Welcome to Eve Online Hold'em!!

Phoebus Athenian
Gallente
Epicurean Circle
Posted - 2008.05.09 00:56:00 - [93]
 

/signed
What Kresh said!

Covenn
Shut Up And Play
Posted - 2008.05.09 04:27:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Kresh Vladir
What he said ^^


My suggestion for doing a 50/30/20, was strictly for the fuller tables (8/9, 9/9). They are bigger, harder, and take a whole lot longer to finish, so more people should be rewarded for their time. I'd even suggest making the 1st/2nd split slightly less top heavy with a 65/35 split in the 4-7 man tables.

1-3 WTA
4-7 65/35
8-9 50/30/20 or 55/30/15

3rd place doesn't make a lot of $$ from either two scenario's, but he did earn enough to buy into another tournament.

bwill220
Final Agony
B A N E
Posted - 2008.05.09 12:02:00 - [95]
 

Why are people arguing about this? Everyone agrees payout structure needs to change. The payout structure is going to change, Selene was actually going to change it two weeks ago, but it was decided to hold off on payout structures because we had a new client coming out, and wanted to release both changes at the same time. Well, the new client has gotten held up a bit (we really want to make sure this client will be the best available for the players, so that we don't need to switch again anytime soon), so perhaps the payout structure should be switched sooner rather than later.

Selene is getting slammed with a lot of stuff right now (trying to keep bankers online at all times, when they are averaging something like 5 tables running at all times across two channels, payouts, clients, not to mention EVE Bank, or actually....playing EvE).

We have a lot of changes in the pipe right now, hopefully providing the best product we can for you guys at this point.

Zhecao Vai
Ultrapolite Socialites
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.05.11 00:11:00 - [96]
 

Edited by: Zhecao Vai on 11/05/2008 00:14:49
Why are you changing the payout structure back? I remember back half a year ago when you changed it to the current structure, and it wasn't some spur-of-the-moment decision. (It used to be set up so that third place gets their buy-in back on tables of 9 people, and second place gets double buyin back for 6-9.)

Kresh's argument isn't accurate. I personally offered multiple different setups which keep each place receiving more and more as table sizes go up. Here's one of them:

1 - 1. 100%
2 - 1. 100%
3 - 1. 100%
4 - 1. 100%
5 - 1. 85%, 2. 15%
6 - 1. 75%, 2. 25%
7 - 1. 70%, 2. 30% (approx)
8 - 1. 65%, 2. 25%, 3. 10% (approx)
9 - 1. 60%, 2. 25%, 3. 15%

100m buy-in:

1 - 1. 100m isk
2 - 1. 200m isk
3 - 1. 300m isk
4 - 1. 400m isk
5 - 1. 425m isk, 2. 75m isk
6 - 1. 450m isk, 3. 150m isk
7 - 1. 500m isk, 2. 200m isk
8 - 1. 520m isk, 2. 210m isk, 3. 70m isk
9 - 1. 540m isk, 2. 225m isk, 3, 135m isk

I offered other ones. There were one or two people who agreed with me, but most people wanted winner-take-all structures, to be honest, with maybe some kind of token condolence payout to second place.

There was some kind of poll held among everyone through evemail and it seemed like the overwhelming agreement was apparently to reject more egalitarian payout structures.

EDIT: This payout structure might seem convoluted, and that's because it's designed specifically to adhere to a laundry list of (in my opinion, very silly) rules that people came up with about how payouts "should" be, similar to Kresh's rule that every place should always increase for every table size.

My point is not that you should change it to that structure, it's mostly just that there is a good reason the payout structures are how they are, and that's because all the people playing wanted them that way, with very few exceptions. I'm surprised that they would change now, especially to a three-place structure that nobody but me seemed to like. If anything, I would expect them to change to winner-take-all.

TomHorn
Caldari
Horn and Brothers
Posted - 2008.05.11 13:31:00 - [97]
 

Since this is being discussed again ill add my preferred payout structure ,

1-5 wta
6-8 2places 60% 40%
9 3places 50% 30% 20%

Keep up the good work EOH long established poker casino

Zhecao Vai
Ultrapolite Socialites
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.05.11 22:41:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: TomHorn
Since this is being discussed again ill add my preferred payout structure ,

1-5 wta
6-8 2places 60% 40%
9 3places 50% 30% 20%

Keep up the good work EOH long established poker casino


This is what I would use too.

Selene D'Celeste
Caldari
The D'Celeste Trading Company
ISK Six
Posted - 2008.05.12 21:18:00 - [99]
 

Just as a reminder, we're not actually changing anything yet. The idea was brought up, I've been thinking about changing it if/when we ever get to changing software, and that is all. I do appreciate discussion, I just want to make sure we don't get into any arguments over it.

Selene D'Celeste
Caldari
The D'Celeste Trading Company
ISK Six
Posted - 2008.05.14 00:06:00 - [100]
 

I added in the link to the new weekly tournaments thread in the main post. Please see that thread for details on our revival attempt at the old weekly tournaments!

Mas Selamat
Posted - 2008.05.15 05:29:00 - [101]
 

This service/product is top notch!
Except for the occasional lag which gets annoying in important hands, but nonetheless.

A+

Selene D'Celeste
Caldari
The D'Celeste Trading Company
ISK Six
Posted - 2008.05.18 00:27:00 - [102]
 

Thanks for the kind words.

As usual, we are nothing without our players, so please let us know what you think and how we can improve. We are limited by software and other conditions, but it never hurts to ask or discuss.

Nikadena
Posted - 2008.05.20 12:17:00 - [103]
 

Indeed a very good service, didnt lose any money sofar ^^

Curzon Dax
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.05.22 03:13:00 - [104]
 

Edited by: Curzon Dax on 22/05/2008 03:15:56
I hope payout structures don't go back to 3 places. Granted, I understand I'm a forgotten relic but there was intense thought put into it, and the deciding factor was that winners should be rewarded for winning.

That's why first place gets most of the money. Second gets reasonably compensated, but the idea of poker here is that the winners should be rewarded. Third place isn't a winner, not even at a table of nine. Congratulations. You made it to the top 30%. Aside from some National Honor Societies in high school, I can't think of any activities where the top 30% of people are rewarded for being ...well, decent. Nothing spectacular, but decent.

Imagine if sports started working that way.

**NASCAR CELEBRATIONS**

Reporter: "We're here interviewing Jeff Gordon, who came in an appalling 12th place, seriously marring his record. Jeff, what happened out there?"

Jeff: "Well, NASCAR is a lot more friendly to the non-winners these days, and I'm happy to be taking home this 12th place trophy. It will make a great addition on my wall."
-------------------------------------------

I can't stress enough the fact that there are winners and losers. You guys play Eve, you should know that. First place wins. They get rewarded. Second place...well, they get enough to make second worth having. But really, that's about as far as it should go. Third place? They should get an honorable mention. Grats on not being good enough to get into the top 25% of players. Do you really want to reward every third player? In an 81 person tournament, 27 people take home prize money? I'm being repetitive so I'll stop.

But c'mon. Rewarding someone for being second-best is one thing. But rewarding the losers who shuffle in after them is appalling.


*EDIT* And as a note, Selene - I did serious research before switching from 3 places to 2 places for payout structure. I held channel polls, solicited EVEmail opinions, consulted professional poker players, did everything. In the end, there was literally overwhelming response to go to 2 payouts. I'm certain you remember the poll. Didn't I make you administer it? Its been a long time; I don't remember so well anymore.

Koyu Ryoko
Perkone
Posted - 2008.05.22 05:19:00 - [105]
 

Originally by: Curzon Dax
Wall of Garbage


Have you ever even played online poker for real money at any of one of many online poker rooms ?. EVERY real money online poker room pays out top 3 spots to FULL table STT's, and multiple players are paid out in very large tournaments. Your comparison of Poker to Nascar is the most absurd thing I have ever read.

I suspect your the type of player who saw poker being played on TV, thought that damn that looks like fun. You then got a bunch of your buddies together with some beers, each threw $20 into a pot, passed around some poker chips and said "Winner takes all".

Why don't you try doing some research into how the game is actually being played in the real world before you come here talking like your the man, the definitive voice for the game of poker. Your ignorance makes me sick.





Selene D'Celeste
Caldari
The D'Celeste Trading Company
ISK Six
Posted - 2008.05.22 14:34:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Koyu Ryoko
Originally by: Curzon Dax
Wall of Garbage

Why don't you try doing some research into how the game is actually being played in the real world before you come here talking like your the man, the definitive voice for the game of poker. Your ignorance makes me sick.



You may discuss payouts here but do not start a flame-fight in my thread.

Curzon Dax
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:54:00 - [107]
 

*laughing* Selene, I don't even know how to respond to him. =p

bwill220
Final Agony
B A N E
Posted - 2008.05.23 01:17:00 - [108]
 

Aren't you that Battleship dueling guy?


Originally by: Curzon Dax
Second gets reasonably compensated, but the idea of poker here is that the winners should be rewarded.

Second place...well, they get enough to make second worth having. But really, that's about as far as it should go.



Often times second doesn't even get the buyin cost back under the current system which is nuts imo, especially after playing a poker game for 60-90 minutes. Generally in full table sit-n-go style tournies (8-10 ppl) third place will be paid out some number approximately around the buyin. Second will be a bit more (often double that) and first place rewards quadruple or more. Yes, payouts should obviously favor finishing first, but the current payout structure basically makes poker a very expensive prospect for an average player, pushing them away from the poker room. The poker room should be rewarding people for winning, yes, but should also focus on keeping player populations high, and supporting it's player base.

Originally by: Curzon Dax
I did serious research before switching from 3 places to 2 places for payout structure. I held channel polls, solicited EVEmail opinions, consulted professional poker players, did everything.


What professional poker players did you consult? I find it hard to believe many professionals/semi-pros would favor a winner-take-all biased payout structure. What were their arguements/thought-process?


Wieting Foyu
Gallente
Apocalypse Rising Inc.
Posted - 2008.05.23 02:38:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: bwill220
Aren't you that Battleship dueling guy?


Originally by: Curzon Dax
Second gets reasonably compensated, but the idea of poker here is that the winners should be rewarded.

Second place...well, they get enough to make second worth having. But really, that's about as far as it should go.



Often times second doesn't even get the buyin cost back under the current system which is nuts imo, especially after playing a poker game for 60-90 minutes. Generally in full table sit-n-go style tournies (8-10 ppl) third place will be paid out some number approximately around the buyin. Second will be a bit more (often double that) and first place rewards quadruple or more. Yes, payouts should obviously favor finishing first, but the current payout structure basically makes poker a very expensive prospect for an average player, pushing them away from the poker room. The poker room should be rewarding people for winning, yes, but should also focus on keeping player populations high, and supporting it's player base.

Originally by: Curzon Dax
I did serious research before switching from 3 places to 2 places for payout structure. I held channel polls, solicited EVEmail opinions, consulted professional poker players, did everything.


What professional poker players did you consult? I find it hard to believe many professionals/semi-pros would favor a winner-take-all biased payout structure. What were their arguements/thought-process?





Crap.. I agree with a VETO.. Next thing you know someone from Market Discussions will be elected to CSM

Lucas Avignon
Avignon Associates Inc.
Posted - 2008.05.24 12:59:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: Koyu Ryoko
Originally by: Curzon Dax
Wall of Garbage


Loads of nooby talk about poker from someones limited experience








WTS Clue

In the real world as you put it, winner does actually take all, you play with REAL MONEY not match sticks or chips, some people have more money to bet with than others.

People sit down at the table and maybe play for an hour and get up and take their winnings or lose it all, but we are talking about real money here something you know nothing about.

You talk about watching players on tv, you talk about online poker rooms, you talk about "very large tournaments"

What you suspect Kurzon of :

" I suspect your the type of player who saw poker being played on TV, thought that damn that looks like fun. You then got a bunch of your buddies together with some beers, each threw $20 into a pot, passed around some poker chips and said "Winner takes all". "

is what you are.

When you think of poker, you think of texas hold em and when you think of texas hold em you think some imaginary online poker table with everyone starting with the same amount of chips "Just like on TV" eh?

Thing is though " Texas Hold'em " is actually one of the many variations of the game of poker, starting with the same number of chips is just one of the many iterations of " Texas Hold'em "

And you say " EVERY real money online poker room pays out top 3 spots to FULL table STT's "

That statement is such a generalization of profound stupidity that words fail me.


Personnally however I cba to play at a table where 3 people get payouts, I can see why some people would prefer this but it is not appealing to me.

Only in full or nearly full tables should the runner up get some sort of payout but the vast majority of the pot should still go to the winner.


Selene D'Celeste
Caldari
The D'Celeste Trading Company
ISK Six
Posted - 2008.06.01 03:50:00 - [111]
 

Bumped for Updates.

King4aDay
Minmatar
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2008.06.01 17:35:00 - [112]
 

Just to weigh in on this whole payout argument, I personally think it would be a good idea to follow the lead of major online poker sites in terms of payout structure. The argument was there for a customized payout structure when it was originally implemented, because games didn't fill all that often, and paying out 3 on a 5/6/7 man table is silly. But paying out 3 on a 9 or 10 man game is really pretty standard, and tables are filling most of the time now except for non-US/Euro timezones.

As the success of the Double/Triple-Thru structure has illustrated, people are fine with different payout structures as long as it's clearly stated beforehand; if people want Winner Take All or Double/Triple-Thru payouts, they can make a request.

There's a good reason why most online sites have single table tournaments that pay out to three people in a fairly standardized manner; quite bluntly, the sharper the payout curve is, the more quickly that poor players will go broke. Poor players go broke more quickly, the regular player pool shrinks. The regular player pool shrinks, you get fewer games going on. Fewer games, less rake for EOH.

Takimi Star
Posted - 2008.06.03 12:32:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Wieting Foyu
Next thing you know someone from Market Discussions will be elected to CSM


I lol'd at this. (waves at LaVista Vista)

Selene D'Celeste
Caldari
The D'Celeste Trading Company
ISK Six
Posted - 2008.06.09 06:30:00 - [114]
 

Things have been going ridiculously smoothly lately. There is an influx of new staff though, as people get busy and plans change for the summer. Please do leave comments and feedback here, and not just in channel, where it is more easily forgotten and less commented on =)

K0Swaves
Posted - 2008.06.13 16:27:00 - [115]
 

I started playing 3 days ago and let me just say that EOH have been for me the best expension ever :)

Seb Tores
Minmatar
Eukaryotes
Posted - 2008.06.13 22:08:00 - [116]
 

hey guys

my PC crashed as I was banking a couple of games and I dug out this old crappy one. I am working on downloading EVE with limited luck so if someone can link me a good DL manager it would be sweet. I will refund and payout everyone once I get back. I hope tonight but cant promise it. next one who reads this plz tell selene about my problems in-game, via mail if not online, thx

Truly sorry about the problems, working on solutions as fast as I can.

Seb Tores
Junior Banker

Drek Grapper
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.06.13 22:25:00 - [117]
 

Thanks for letting us know Seb. Channel has been informed. Smile

Seb Tores
Minmatar
Eukaryotes
Posted - 2008.06.13 22:27:00 - [118]
 

thx bud, downloading from bittorrent and 2 mirror sites atm, hoping that works better then the classic/premium ones.. wish I could remember what DL manager I have in my old crappy pc that just died, cause I never had this problem on it. hope to log on tonight even if late.

Selene D'Celeste
Caldari
The D'Celeste Trading Company
ISK Six
Posted - 2008.06.17 17:21:00 - [119]
 

Edited by: Selene D''Celeste on 18/06/2008 13:37:31
Testing of the Mavens 2.0 client has begun, and I expect a full deployment by the end of the weekend uf not sooner. Especially given yesterday's incident (thread is here), we're taking special care to make sure all logging is in place, the new account system has an adequate level of security, and that we have backup systems for accounts and the server itself in case of a power failure. This is especially important since Ring game account information needs to be as up to date as possible, since chips = ISK and it's changing in real-time.

The system with tournament tables will stay the same as it is now -- bankers will still run them and have a start code to begin them. We are also working on an interface for our staff to get table results and deal with other goodies so that we have more thorough administration abilities 23/7, as well as enough logging accuracy to track down any previous problem/scam that has happened in the past. We're also evaluating how best to securely handle the money for the Ring games, since deposits could amount of to a sizable chunk.

EOH has come a long ways from the day where running 5 games in an evening was a feat, and a 105m game was a weekly event in scarcity. There used to be no banker coordination, lots of coverage gaps existed, and no rules existed for when technical difficulties or other issues occur. Sadly, we always find more situations to deal with. As usual we're taking this opportunity to improve the service even more, and I hope that it is obvious at how much work gets put into making this a secure, fun, and reasonable service for those involved, despite hiccups along that path.

I am really looking forward to this next step in the coming days.

gilca
Caldari
GOP KOHTOPA
Wreck Alliance
Posted - 2008.06.17 22:26:00 - [120]
 

Edited by: gilca on 24/06/2008 01:44:10
the issue has been resolved


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (22)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only