I noticed the Sunday 100k is now a 125+9 Buy in.
Yesterday the 70k changed to 50k.
Today the new 50k is now 60k.
Only 50 free seats to the 100k instead of 100 seats.

I noticed the changes yesterday already.

Buy-in for the 100K was at $150 though and the 70k changed to 50k with the same buy-in.

Changes also include the buy-in for the 6-max step satellites for those tournaments. Their buy-in has been slightly raised and there is some freerolls running every X hours to the step 1 sng's.

i do enjoy that they got rid of the weekday 109 at 3 pm

It's worse than that....

Former $109 buy in $100,000 GTD Pro Bounty is now $134 buy in
Former $11 buy in $10,000 GTD is now a $22 "Bounty" where $6 of the buy in goes into a bounty pool...
Former $530 buy in $70,000 GTD is now a "Superstack" $60,000 GTD with 15k starting chips
Former $109 buy in $8,000 GTD is now a $7,500 GTD.

I knew the lesser GTD's were coming - how long can you go continuing to pay overlays in every Sunday tournament? But gimmicking the $10k to a bounty format, even with an increase in starting chips from 2k to 3k, is a terrible decision.

Yet again, Lock, and Revolution, are at the forefront of alerting it's players of upcoming changes....AND, yet again, instead of dealing with their issues, they just adjust their tournament schedule accordingly. How long until the GTD's are lowered until they are undesirable to play?

Uhh... everything should be undesirable to play when they aren't paying. It was more alarming when changes weren't being made immediately. At least this shows some effort from a business standpoint.

If it's the overlays of GTD's on Lock that got you excited to play, then that's the problem right there. The only thing that should get anyone excited about playing on Lock is the paying out of withdrawal requests.

^^ Oh, I stopped playing on Lock a while ago. I play on Intertops, which is unfortunately still on the Revolution network, where all these tourneys are stationed.

Ahh right, makes sense. Is it possible for someone to get an invite to join Intertops or are U.S. players SOL with that at this point, with Bovada as the only primary option?

Intertops has to be closely involved with this whole situation, as the lack of Lock traffic is going to kill tournaments across the network. With that being said, I'm somewhat shocked that Intertops hasn't been able to assist in Lock's financial situation, as it has directly harmed the network's traffic and will only get worse moving forward.

Edit: Also, who then makes the decisions on these tournament changes? Who has the sway of the network, is it one of the sites in general, or is it a third party?

This is all just my two cents, so take it for what it's worth. But Lock is primarily responsible for driving up these network-wide GTD tourneys and now they all have to suffer because of Lock's current ineptitude and unwillingness to change. I don't think Intertops has anything to do with the network's GTD decisions - Cake, which I guess owns Revolution according to the sham article Lock CEO Jen Larson gave to the "in the pocket" "reporter", calls the shots - though one has to assume Lock has some pull with that since they are the network's #1 skin.

From what I gather, Intertops wouldn't associate with Lock at all in any case - Intertops has been around for a very long time and I'm sure they don't need to have Lock in their corner to continue on. Most feel if Intertops left Revolution, they'd be just fine as well.

And Intertops is strictly invite-only for US players. They also have good policies in place to make sure players aren't just in for a cup of coffee. You have to reach certain plateaus to be able to P2P transfer, for instance.

Just logged on to intertops - no 215 dhr, no 15r, 109 10k is now a 6k, 10r 3k is now 2.5k and they added a bunch of micro rebuys lol

So then as far as the overlays are concerned, since they are across the network, all sites share in the losses of overlays? For instance, in the original $109 100K GTD, is each site responsible for hitting a certain number of players each week from the 1,000 that was needed? Since Intertops is smaller, would they need to hit say... 200/1000 players each week to not be responsible for overlay losses or would each site be responsible for an overall % of overlay? I know we don't KNOW these answers, but I like to hear speculations.

Hypothetically let's say 900 players signed up in the past, creating 100 players of overlay ($10,000). If each site was responsible for a % of that $, then Intertops would be directly taking HITS based on Lock. So in my mind, each site must have to have an agreed upon # to hit each week in order to not be responsible for overlay expenses, at least that would make some sense to me. Unless it's a 3rd party (owner) of the entire network who pays for the overlays, in which case wouldn't they have made changes for overlay tournaments much sooner across the board instead of losing $ week after week for the past couple months?

The standard calculation is the percentage of players registered per room.

So if a room has 70% of the players in the tournament they are responsible for 70% of any overlays in that tournament.

Sorry to hear about the Sunday $11 / $10K GTD. That tournament used to be one of my favorite ones. It appears that "whoever" decided to adjust the tournaments still hasn't made up his mind as the 100K was 150+ X yesterday, lol.

It also seems like "big bounty" is the new route taken. I played a few of them the last days with 50% of the buy-in being the player bounty. Seeing it applied to the 10K GTD is a shame.

I have to say though that I do like them deesptack turbo tourneys.

I believe adjusting the overlays is the right thing to do. Few weeks ago the 100K GTD had a 35K overlay. On the long run and specially with the problems Lock currently has the changes seem reasonable to me even if we the players (as usually) don't like those changes. Personally I hate the 10K change.

I guess Shane posting the tournament changes on 2+2 might be seen as advertising which he's clearly not allowed to do atm. But Lock could have posted the changes on their new /news page and gotten their social media guy to get the news out... oh well, good that the regulars stay on top of site changes themself...

Are you serious? That doesn't sound like a good plan at all. If the tournaments are causing overlays, then what would be each site's incentive to have more people sign-up for them? For instance, if the $100K GTD was having $30K overlays, and Lock had 50% of the field, they'd owe $15K in overlay. So when the tournaments are running overlays.. the incentive for each site is actually to MINIMIZE their own % of players in the tournaments? Are there baboons running this network? Is it crab people? Holy common sense.

That is the dumbest thing I've heard since... well... yesterday because I was also on here yesterday.

Shane - Who is in charge of making the decisions to change the structures/buy-ins/GTD's of the tournaments? Does each site on the network get a certain amount of votes like a democracy? Is there 1 owner of the network who makes the decisions? I'm just trying to make sense of this process to better understand each site's role/% of interest.

I don't believe the 100K ProElite Bounty and the 50,60,70K ProElite Bounty are network wide tournaments.. but I might be wrong.

These adjustments are only 13 months late. Odds, on there still being ridiculous overlays again this weekend?

It should be interesting to see how the demand for the 100k handles the price increase. If anyone running this network had a clue they(the man behind the curtain) would have decreased the guarantee, instead of increased the price for the buy in.

This is what happens in a world run by marketing majors. Farging idiots./

This isn't a Revolution thing its an industry thing.

If a site doesnt want the overlays of certain tournaments then they opt out of those tournaments and dont run them, if a rooms players are participating in those tournaments then the incentive is to market them as hard as possible and reduce the overlays.

The network team makes the decisions with input from the skins. Though as we saw with the recent changes to the tournament schedule they dont always listen that closely as both Lock and Intertops came out against the changes on here.

Thanks for the info. I guess from a business standpoint I tend to think that when things are failing, it is time to try a change in strategies(not just tournament structures). For instance, if the traffic is as down as it seems and overlays seem to be inevitable to the point where they'll continue to occur, then the skins who are choosing to partake are taking clear losses, which is hard to watch Lock do at this point.

When we as players are already speculating (and rightfully so) that Lock has been losing money(& lost money) and/or doesn't have our player funds secure as is, it's hard to understand why they would participate in something that ends up in blatant losses. I just can't imagine the attraction of the $100K GTD warranting even $10K in overlays from Lock. Even if those players combined for $10K in rake/casino losses, Lock is still losing by breaking even. There are better ways to attract the higher rollers to play for hours and hours than by taking hits of those overlays.

Personally I think it's because they do have the playermoney, and so all there's to it from their point of view is some months of losses on guarantees where they were hoping to get back the traffic because people would see there's overlay and thus start signing again for the extra value (in the process if multiple do this, negating this extra value, but that aside). That doesn't seem to be happening, so now they do something about it. Not more, not less about it basically. Who knows tho :/

And I could understand that concept if they were paying players. Did Lock really assume that by continuing to not pay players that we would still be all "O_O omg free overlay $"? I find that part hard to believe (them being that ignorant). How could they assume we'd all want to keep playing 4 months later after not being paid? 3 months they could have gotten away with (for a short while).

Now they're screwing themselves over, and should be instituting a "Start from the ground up" policy where they only allow tournaments where they consistently profit. If they're going to take losses consistently in front of our faces on tournaments that hardly net them money on their own to begin with, WHILE not paying us for 4+ months, then I tend to think they have a stubborn child running that company.