Why no good satellites to the wsop?

0
PokerBrah posted this 30 May 2015

On the Vegas WSOP software, there is a 25 seat guaranteed satellite for the main event. In NJ , we have a $200 buy in for 1 seat which makes no sense. We never got any satties for the Colossus or any other WSOP event. We have one satellite a week for the WSOP main event and it only pays 1 seat. You guys did a terrible job on the schedule and I don't get it. Please explain this to me.

Last edited 30 May 2015

4 Comments
Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
0
wsopbill posted this 30 May 2015

There's just not enough demand in NJ to warrant more satellites. Yes, we have a weekly $13K package that is a Main Event Seat ($10K) plus an Online Bracelet Seat ($1K) with travel ($2K) and it overlayed by over $2,000 (17% overlay) last Sunday. If it we're covering one seat and coming close to awarding another, we would guarantee a second seat and-or considering adding more tournaments to the schedule. But when it's not even covering one seat, it just doesn't make sense to put more packages out there.

In regards to not getting satellites to Colossus, it's a $565 event. Without adding a travel package that is worth more than the tournament entry, it's not something that we felt would be very attractive to players.

Last year we ran a very aggressive satellite schedule in NJ and it performed very poorly. Overall, we're sending roughly the same amount of player money from NJ to NV. By that I mean that if you subtract out all of the overlays from last year and just look at the player contributed part of the prize pools, it's not too far off from what we've guaranteed this year.

Believe me, we want to send as many people to the WSOP as possible -it's in everyone's best interest - but it has to be done in a way that makes sense for us.

Last year we ran an aggressive strategy and it didn't perform to our expectations. This year we scaled it back and it's still not performing as well as we would like.

We're already working on some ideas for next year that are informed from these two data points.

0
ghost_of_m posted this 09 June 2015

There's just not enough demand in NJ to warrant more satellites. Yes, we have a weekly $13K package that is a Main Event Seat ($10K) plus an Online Bracelet Seat ($1K) with travel ($2K) and it overlayed by over $2,000 (17% overlay) last Sunday. If it we're covering one seat and coming close to awarding another, we would guarantee a second seat and-or considering adding more tournaments to the schedule. But when it's not even covering one seat, it just doesn't make sense to put more packages out there.

We all respect where you are coming from. And your transparency in explaining these numbers to players is head and shoulders better than the competition. So thank you for that.

However, I think if we focus on the satellites themselves, we miss the big picture. There is no over-all strategy for funneling NJ players into these satellites. $200 is a huge bankroll investment for players who are, on average, not playing higher than 50NL (just a guess there).

If I can be so bold, I think if there was a ladder system where you could start out for $1 or $5 and ladder up, you would get more people in that weekly "final satellite."

$200 or nothing sadly results in a lot of players choosing "nothing" just out of simple BRM.

In regards to not getting satellites to Colossus, it's a $565 event. Without adding a travel package that is worth more than the tournament entry, it's not something that we felt would be very attractive to players.

Once again, this is an event that was very visable and highly desirable to players. You would be surprised how many people would play these satellites, even if there was no travel package. The fact that it was a low buy-in doesn't change that. Once again, direct satellites would not have been as effective without a ladder up group of tournaments. If you had ladder up series, running a few times a day, you would beat the guarantee for any satellite every weekend.

Last year we ran a very aggressive satellite schedule in NJ and it performed very poorly. Overall, we're sending roughly the same amount of player money from NJ to NV. By that I mean that if you subtract out all of the overlays from last year and just look at the player contributed part of the prize pools, it's not too far off from what we've guaranteed this year.

Last year we ran an aggressive strategy and it didn't perform to our expectations. This year we scaled it back and it's still not performing as well as we would like.

Timing is everything. Last year the market was new. One of the main reasons the campaign under-performed was likely player awareness. This year, the buzz about the Series is at an all-time high.

Don't just make it about the main event. If there is still time, test out a ladder up series for any tournament on the WSOP schedule. For that matter, what about the online bracelet event that NJ players have been so unceremoniously excluded from? If you provided a way to satellite into that event, or any other live event on the series, it would provide you with real data that you could use towards next year's schedule.

Thanks for reading.

0
wsopbill posted this 09 June 2015

If I can be so bold, I think if there was a ladder system where you could start out for $1 or $5 and ladder up, you would get more people in that weekly "final satellite."

$200 or nothing sadly results in a lot of players choosing "nothing" just out of simple BRM.

We did run steps last year as well. Ultimately a lot of players ended up not being able to make it up the ladder to a seat.

Steps really only work when there is sufficient liquidity. This was even a point brought up by some of the players on 2p2 when the topic was discussed there. A few pointed out that not enough of the higher levels ran consistently enough.

Regardless, we do run satellites and super satellites into any $200 buy-in event. So, the ladders do exist, but players are free to use the buy-ins for a WSOP package or any other $200 buy-in event.

And this is where I have to disagree with you because players who are winning these satellites and super-satellites are using them in cash tournaments, not WSOP satellites.

Once again, this is an event that was very visable and highly desirable to players. You would be surprised how many people would play these satellites, even if there was no travel package. The fact that it was a low buy-in doesn't change that. Once again, direct satellites would not have been as effective without a ladder up group of tournaments. If you had ladder up series, running a few times a day, you would beat the guarantee for any satellite every weekend.

A $565 without a travel package is a tough sell - regardless of the price point - for the following reasons:

a) The player is probably going to have to invest more than $565 to get to Vegas and for accommodations

b) Without exception, even in Europe, any satellite that involves travel dramatically decreases the pool of interested players.

Bottom line is that it wasn't a package that we thought we could offer that would provide a good customer experience and we aren't going to put a package out there were we feel that players aren't going to be happy winning it.

0
South732Paw posted this 18 June 2015

I think next year, you should start the satellites around the same time as you did in 2014, but don't take down your marquee tournaments of the night, Host your daily 10k and your daily 5k, and have the satellites to the 1.5k seat in between. the 30r main seat satellites are bit more drastic, and obviously would be more plausible with more liquidity. But you shouldn't have taken down your nightly tournaments on satellite days in 2014, that's directly responsible for the poor turnouts.

Also, I made a post in the MTT section about a potential upgrade to 2 daily tournaments that would generate more $ to your site, so you should check that out, was going to re-post it here, but don't think thats necessary.