The last VIP - Holdem tournament took place on September 20th. The reason was the limit of less than 12 participants, which was sucked out of the "pen" somewhere. Well, what can I say!?
When it was cancelled last time, many people couldn't understand why and today (October 8th) they didn't even try - that's how interest in the thing just disappears!! At the same time, the VIP tournament for a thousand people will probably be held in 20 rounds with 9 participants and it could also be interrupted in the 3rd round if 1 participant disappears from the network.!? Things are not in order!
Disadvantages of the new play space
Read by 287 users
I use the Firefox browser, it's just not there.
In the VIP tournament, the total number of hands and pots was not 12. If the public wishes, VIP tournaments could be canceled altogether.
Why should it be cancelled? Why was there a minimum limit of 12 participants?
Hello,
The limit came about for two reasons:
We'll see in November - when the Bismarck series is over: whether the 12 players will start meeting in the evenings or not.
The limit came about for two reasons:
- Some nights there were 4-5 participants in the freeroll. With that number of participants, giving out 26 credits each night is a bit much.
- I looked at last year's statistics and it shows that last year 3 tournaments would have been canceled within a month with such a limit.
We'll see in November - when the Bismarck series is over: whether the 12 players will start meeting in the evenings or not.
12 is a lot of demand in Hold'em! But 1 full table, or 6, would be fine.
The prize pool and the so-called. financial places should depend on the number of participants, especially in Texas. Such formulas exist and the principle has been discussed years ago in this forum. Not all games should be beaten with one stick, although it is probably easier administratively and in terms of program composition. Sasku and the requirement of 12 thousand is quite ok, but why 20 rounds in such a case. I don't see the point, let others comment on the remaining games.
The prize pool and the so-called. financial places should depend on the number of participants, especially in Texas. Such formulas exist and the principle has been discussed years ago in this forum. Not all games should be beaten with one stick, although it is probably easier administratively and in terms of program composition. Sasku and the requirement of 12 thousand is quite ok, but why 20 rounds in such a case. I don't see the point, let others comment on the remaining games.
And this is an old topic, which is still a common concern of many users here - In the new version, finding tournaments is still several times worse than in the old one, can't you really make this tournament space: either move it up or make it more visible or bigger or whatever! It's especially bad if there are some ongoing tournaments at the top of the list, many don't even fit properly in that narrow space! Tournament information should still be important, right?! And this is certainly not a tease or a rant here! Many simply don't bother to speak up anymore, because there's not much use for it...
In Saskus, after the game ends, the user sits in the game room for a while as an "active" player, but even after the game, it is already visible in the Sasku group that they have already left the game room altogether, while in my open game they continue to sit under the spectators for a while....
Now, offer windows should no longer hide anything - neither on mobile nor on computer.
I spent a lot of time making four turakas today. Couldn't the window with the leaves be a little wider and the part showing the passages, etc. narrower?