PDA

View Full Version : Steinway Classic - Who Set Stream Prices?


playpool2
11-01-2015, 03:04 PM
What were they thinking? Must be a government employee. Complain about prices and they raise them.

For $18 i will go watch a movie that cost millions to produce not a pool tournament.

I would willingly pay to watch if it was similar to the Accu-Stats production where you could choose a day or evening session where the charge was in line with its value.

Not a good decision.

3andstop
11-01-2015, 03:25 PM
I always enjoy sitting back when the time allows and watch a little live pool online, but I agree with you. This is a bit steep and I would never be able to take advantage of an entire day at the same time. Also, that stream has historically been iffy ... and it isn't quite Accu-stats either as you mentioned so, I'll second your thought.

Splitting it into sessions is good, but I too was surprised to see 18 bucks a day. I would have imagined it to be more like 10 or 12, but hey .... it's their deal I guess. I'm out.

Not to mention that for me ... it's rotation. Not my cup of tea. Too redundant for me. I might take a single 18 dollar stab at a good one hole match though. :smile:

Txstang1
11-01-2015, 03:32 PM
anything more than $10 a day is too much, imo. I MIGHT pay that much for something like the mosconi cup, but wouldn't buy it everyday...too expensive.

plowking
11-01-2015, 03:39 PM
What were they thinking? Must be a government employee. Complain about prices and they raise them.

For $18 i will go watch a movie that cost millions to produce not a pool tournament.

I would willingly pay to watch if it was similar to the Accu-Stats production where you could choose a day or evening session where the charge was in line with its value.

Not a good decision.

i COMPLETELY Agree...i would have paid $5.95-$7.95 per day, but No Way Jose for $18...Give me a break....

Gunn_Slinger
11-01-2015, 03:42 PM
It's cheaper then going to the movies for us. Forty dollars is giving us a longer time to watch some all star pool. We've been watching the usopen all week. Why would I want to start cleaning or cooking yet,,,, lol.

It's a little high for what it is, without the A-one commentators that we had with Danny D and Mark Wilson this should be a bit cheaper.
:wink:
We bought n late would have been much cheaper I think at the early bird price.
All the best
Mrs.g

Joe_Jaguar
11-01-2015, 03:47 PM
It's cheaper then going to the movies for us. Forty dollars is giving us a longer time to watch some all star pool. We've been watching the usopen all week. Why would I want to start cleaning or cooking yet,,,, lol.

It's a little high for what it is, without the A-one commentators that we had with Danny D and Mark Wilson this should be a bit cheaper.
:wink:
We bought n late would have been much cheaper I think at the early bird price.
All the best
Mrs.g
That Accu-Stats stream had "A-one commentators"? People living in the past :o

(((Satori)))
11-01-2015, 03:49 PM
Danny D is top of the line imo.

I love hearing his commentating. I always will as long as he is available.

BeiberLvr
11-01-2015, 03:58 PM
Danny D is top of the line imo.

I love hearing his commentating. I always will as long as he is available.

Danny D is top of line.

Archer should be on the Mosconi Cup team.

Be serious, you're trolling here, right?

Houstoer
11-01-2015, 06:37 PM
I agree its way overpriced. I was looking forward to watching football then watching pool and would watch it each night but its a little to steep for my blood.

NINEBALLART
11-01-2015, 08:33 PM
If it was for Fri., Sat., and Sun., I would of....But I work Mon. and Tues. and have league both those nights also..Wouldn't get to see much pool for that price...So I had to pass...Wouldn't be worth it for the time I had to watch...
If the price was lower I probably would of even though I wouldn't get to see much...

dawgcpa
11-01-2015, 08:54 PM
I bought the early bird special which I think was $30 for all 3 days. I didn't think it was bad but there is a gamble considering the problems we've had with streams out of Steinway earlier.

I always look at the stream purchases as supporting the people trying to build pool. I buy most all of the major streams and some I never even watch. I'm also setup on auto pay with some streamers and never tune into their stream. If I happen to catch POV, I try and send Daniel 20. BTW, his stream is always top quality IMHO. It may be crazy but I'm a working professional with some disposable income and I want to try and help the people supporting pool. I have friends who go to Nascar, football, baseball, etc and it cost them thousands every year. I just choose to support pool as much as possible. It may not be everyone's cup of tea but we all sit around and b*tch about how crappy pool has become but we never spend any money on it. Try and support a few whether they are good or not and buy a few products from the sponsors. I think that would go a long way to building the game back.

Just my 2 cents....

TheLoneSilencer
11-01-2015, 10:09 PM
Let us call a spade a spade, the stream prices are overpriced & I bet some of it is to cover the cost of the added money. The same thing we had with the Gotham stream.

Someone would have to hate their money to pay for a AZBTV stream especially out of Steinway. If it is not the wifi issues that consistently mess with the stream, it is the super amateurish commentary that frequents the streams. No one cares about what you or anyone else is eating at the venue or finds good at the place.

LIAKOS27
11-02-2015, 09:20 AM
Danny D is top of line.

Archer should be on the Mosconi Cup team.

Be serious, you're trolling here, right?

What's Archers statistics in mosconi cup?? Is he any good over there?

Actually, now that I think of it,,,,, Archer does have the worst record over there right?

Doesn't Shane have the best? Isn't he like 98%winner?

Just thinking out loud, just thinking out loud;)

(((Satori)))
11-02-2015, 09:42 AM
Danny D is top of line.

Archer should be on the Mosconi Cup team.

Be serious, you're trolling here, right?

Not at all Biebs. Both are 100% how I really feel.

AtLarge
11-02-2015, 09:56 AM
What's Archers statistics in mosconi cup?? Is he any good over there?

Actually, now that I think of it,,,,, Archer does have the worst record over there right?

Doesn't Shane have the best? Isn't he like 98%winner?

Just thinking out loud, just thinking out loud;)

You're probably being sarcastic. But for anyone wondering about their actual records:

Method 1. -- Counting a full win or loss for each player in a doubles' or trebles' match (i.e., not splitting the point into halves or thirds), and a win and a loss for everyone in a team match (i.e., not splitting the point into fifths or sixths).

• Shane Van Boening (8 years -- 2007-2014) ..... 9-12 singles, 9-10 doubles, 3-5 teams, 21-27 total (winning percentage of 44%)

• Johnny Archer (17 years) ..... 18-13 singles, 26-23 doubles, 0-2 trebles, 5-4 teams, 49-42 total (winning percentage of 54%)


Method 2. -- Counting a full point for each player in a singles win or loss, a half a point for each player in a doubles win or loss, a third of a point for each player in a trebles (played only in 2006) win or loss, and one-fifth of a point (one-sixth in 2006 when the teams had 6 players) for each player in a team win or loss.

• Van Boening ..... 14.1 - 18.0 (winning percentage 44%)

• Archer ..... 31.9 - 26.0 (winning percentage 55%)


[Both players had poor showings in their latest Cups -- 1-4 (Method 1) for SVB in 2014, 0-4 for Archer in 2013.]

Wedge
11-02-2015, 10:06 AM
You're probably being sarcastic. But for anyone wondering about their actual records:

Method 1. -- Counting a full win or loss for each player in a doubles' or trebles' match (i.e., not splitting the point into halves or thirds), and a win and a loss for everyone in a team match (i.e., not splitting the point into fifths or sixths).

Shane Van Boening (8 years -- 2007-2014) ..... 9-12 singles, 9-10 doubles, 3-5 teams, 21-27 total (winning percentage of 44%)

Johnny Archer (17 years) ..... 18-13 singles, 26-23 doubles, 0-2 trebles, 5-4 teams, 49-42 total (winning percentage of 54%)


Method 2. -- Counting a full point for each player in a singles win or loss, a half a point for each player in a doubles win or loss, a third of a point for each player in a trebles (played only in 2006) win or loss, and one-fifth of a point (one-sixth in 2006 when the teams had 6 players) for each player in a team win or loss.

Van Boening ..... 14.1 - 18.0 (winning percentage 44%)

Archer ..... 31.9 - 25.9 (winning percentage 55%)


[Both players had poor showings in their latest Cups -- 1-4 (Method 1) for SVB in 2014, 0-4 for Archer in 2013.]

What were Bergman and Halls records from last year using the above method?

Thanks

Wedge

Poolshootindon
11-02-2015, 10:32 AM
What were they thinking? Must be a government employee. Complain about prices and they raise them.

For $18 i will go watch a movie that cost millions to produce not a pool tournament.

I would willingly pay to watch if it was similar to the Accu-Stats production where you could choose a day or evening session where the charge was in line with its value.

Not a good decision.

I do agree $18 for a pool stream that has connection issues and poor commentary is excessive.

By charging $18 you have eliminated a lot of folks who would have paid $9.95 to watch.

If you are trying to market the few who are going to watch and then you charge nearly $20 I think your're shooting yourself in the foot.

But the market will determine if it is to high.

Don

AtLarge
11-02-2015, 12:47 PM
What were Bergman and Halls records from last year using the above method?

Thanks

Wedge

Method 1:
Justin Bergman ..... 0-2 singles, 1-1 doubles, 0-1 teams, 1-4 total (20%)
Justin Hall ..... 1-0 singles, 2-1 doubles, 0-1 teams, 3-2 total (60%)

Method 2:
Bergman ..... 0.5 - 2.7 (16%)
Hall ..... 2.0 - 0.7 (74%)

Wedge
11-02-2015, 01:04 PM
Method 1:
Justin Bergman ..... 0-2 singles, 1-1 doubles, 0-1 teams, 1-4 total (20%)
Justin Hall ..... 1-0 singles, 2-1 doubles, 0-1 teams, 3-2 total (60%)

Method 2:
Bergman ..... 0.5 - 2.7 (16%)
Hall ..... 2.0 - 0.7 (74%)

Good stuff!

Wedge

TomInFaribo
11-02-2015, 01:25 PM
Don't know why others are cluttering this up with Masconi Cup Talk.
Just wanted to say I'm glad I didn't buy the Steinway stream.
Too expensive. Some are asking for money back on their facebook page because of streaming problems. Good luck there. The live scoring from what I saw yesterday is a joke and the brackets are a joke.

sciarco
11-02-2015, 01:29 PM
does anyone have a win/loose % on Earl in the Mosconi cups he played in over the years not sure but I think it's pretty high thanks.

sciarco
11-02-2015, 01:43 PM
AtLARGE would you know Earl's winning percentage at the Mosconi cups he played in I think it's pretty high thanks.

dawgcpa
11-02-2015, 02:05 PM
Stream is running great today. I've watched Shane, Earl, Jason, Alex, Stevie Moore, and Mika. I've actually watched more of my favorites today than in the whole US Open on Accu Stats. Their choices mush have been driven by Asian TV market.

Anyway, I've been pleased.

Gunn_Slinger
11-02-2015, 02:18 PM
We have not had a problem with stream. It's not as sharp picture as the US Open.
Some guy they have come in the booth is a little cray-cray and the mute button goes on when he is there.But he doesn't stay long (lol) Other then that the commentators have been above average, no Danny and Mark, but they are doing well. I like the fact that Snooki pulls it back when the booth goes off topic and brings it back to the game we are watching.

From what I understand the streamers have nothing to do with the keeping of the brackets or the live streaming scoring.

That is too bad.

You would think for the money you are paying live brackets would be the norm.

Not having brackets you can glance at or live scoring is a negative.

After just watching the US Open where you had all the bells and whistles
it's a tad weak for the money you are paying.

All in all, I would pay early bird price next time. I like to support UpStateAl for all he does for pool.

Just my thoughts
mrs.g

AtLarge
11-02-2015, 05:59 PM
AtLARGE would you know Earl's winning percentage at the Mosconi cups he played in I think it's pretty high thanks.


Earl has played in 14 Mosconi Cups, 1996-2008 and 2013. Here is his record on two bases.

Method 1. -- Counting a full win or loss for each player in a doubles' or trebles' match (i.e., not splitting the point into halves or thirds), and a win or a loss for everyone in a team match (i.e., not splitting the point into fifths or sixths).

14-12 singles, 24-12 doubles, 1-1 trebles, 3-2 teams, 42-27 total (winning percentage 61%)

Method 2 -- Counting a full point for each player in a singles win or loss, a half a point for each player in a doubles win or loss, a third of a point for each player in a trebles (played only in 2006) win or loss, and one-fifth of a point (one-sixth in 2006 when the teams had 6 players) for each player in a team win or loss, his record is as follows:

26.8 - 18.7 (59%)

3andstop
11-02-2015, 07:52 PM
I do agree $18 for a pool stream that has connection issues and poor commentary is excessive.

By charging $18 you have eliminated a lot of folks who would have paid $9.95 to watch.

If you are trying to market the few who are going to watch and then you charge nearly $20 I think your're shooting yourself in the foot.

But the market will determine if it is to high.

Don

I don't know how this bandwidth thing works once it gets out from the pool room to Ustream or where ever it goes, but I wondered if less people watch would that help prevent poor bandwidth lagging?

Maybe that's why they charged so much .... in an effort to reduce viewing bandwidth and still make the same money???? :shrug:

Dave714
11-02-2015, 10:20 PM
I know someone who does it for a living . Still owes me $40 from a pool bet 7 yrs ago .But always played if off because of being a nit. He probably needed it ::more than me. :wink:

gxman
11-03-2015, 04:53 AM
I'd pay $10-12 to watch the final day matches, but screw 18.

howie9ball
11-03-2015, 05:12 AM
they are absolutely robbing the public with those absurd prices.i purchase a lot of on line tournaments but would never never pay those cut throat prices.they deserve to not get many viewers.

Poolshootindon
11-03-2015, 05:25 AM
I don't know how this bandwidth thing works once it gets out from the pool room to Ustream or where ever it goes, but I wondered if less people watch would that help prevent poor bandwidth lagging?

Maybe that's why they charged so much .... in an effort to reduce viewing bandwidth and still make the same money???? :shrug:

That could be true. Seems to me, the promoters put profit in front of viewership.

tduncan
11-03-2015, 05:25 AM
I don't know how this bandwidth thing works once it gets out from the pool room to Ustream or where ever it goes, but I wondered if less people watch would that help prevent poor bandwidth lagging?

Maybe that's why they charged so much .... in an effort to reduce viewing bandwidth and still make the same money???? :shrug:



That is what I thought as well.