It did get enough players the first time when it was advertised. It fell short the second time with no advertising and at an earlier time (making it more difficult for anyone outside of the East Coast to play).

I can guarantee you that an $11r won't get every single player from the previous 20k tournaments.

600 players averaging 2 buy ins under the current structure would be $12k.

400 players averaging 4-5 buy ins under the rebuy structure would be $16-$20k.

It wouldn't need every single player and imagine what the pot would be if it were able to bring them all back. They could market it in a similar way to the million:

"The Sunday Million is Back!"

"The Mega Rebuy is Back!"

There's just a huge difference. The 20k GTD had 5 hour late reg. I made a post saying I'd enter in if I got back in time, but wouldn't rush. I didn't happen to make it the day it made the GTD.

The next day when they held it again, I had a day off. Now, I'm on a break from MTT poker at the moment, but that was the only tournament I played all week. I took a nap, then late regged it. If it was a R/A I wouldn't have done so - because registration def. would have been closed. They absolutely will not get 400 players, and if they did, they can't keep registration/rebuy period on for long enough to get a 20k+ prize pool. And even IF they did, they wouldn't make enough money on the tournament to make it worth it on their end.

The only way to know for sure is to run it and test it out.

I was thinking a Sunday test as opposed to a week day.

But here's the thing. Such a tournament would make WPN almost no money if it was succesful, so why would they run it?

It I was management there I wouldn't want a big GTD R/A becoming part of the normal tournament schedule. I may want a big normal re-entry tournament, but not a R/A where the rake is tiny compared to the prize pool.

There are so many reasons this wouldn't be a smart move for WPN/wouldn't work, your only arguments are "PokerStars did it" and "it might work if they tried it." Well sure, it might work. But there's many better things they can do, and they should focus on those.

I get that you like the idea, but obviously not too many others do because nobody has come to defend your position.

That's because you're only thinking about the rake from that one tournament. And, forgetting about the additional rake that would be made when the players take their winnings to the cash game tables and higher stakes MTT's.

Bottom up. That's what's PROVEN to work.

That "big normal re-entry tournament" was already attempted and FAILED. So...

How did it fail? It beat the guarantee by over 10% the first time it ran.

By only hitting it "the first time it ran."

So the fact that it was pretty unknown it was running a second time, and an hour earlier (starting at 2pm ET), is irrelevant?

No, it's totally relevant and a big part of the reason why the tournament will always fail. If you're forced to move it to 2pm to satisfy players that didn't like the 4:00 am ending time of the first one then it's a flaw in the structure and it needs to be changed.

The tournament in its current form is only accessible by 70% of the population no matter what time you schedule it. One time zone is always going to be excluded due to time constraints no matter what time the tournament starts at. If you shorten the length of the tournament you solve the problem.

600 players = 10 hours of play under the current structure

5,000 players = 10 hours of play (many times it ended in 8-9 hours) under the Pokerstars 2010 rebuy structure

This entire, "Let's keep doing the same thing and expect different results" philosophy needs to stop at some point.

I mean yeah that's great and all but doesn't actually mean anything when it comes down to it.

I see no reason to believe that it would be the right thing to do from a marketing standpoint, and unless you provide statistics to prove that running a R/A will improve traffic more than a non-R/A everything you claim is just hearsay.

You're just claiming that the type of tournament YOU'D prefer is better for the site and for marketing. Why not just come out and say it straight up?

I'll be happy to post the stats as soon as WPN test it out and runs it.

And, you're not doing the same thing?

I'm looking to get one of the most popular tournaments on Pokerstars' 2010 schedule (the year they had the MOST tracked MTT players in the site's history at 1.9 million players according to OPR) brought to WPN. Given that this tournament on a day to day basis during the weekdays generated larger fields of players than ANY OTHER TOURNAMENT ON THE SCHEDULE DURING THE WEEKDAYS I don't think it's a stretch at all to say it would do the same thing here.

It's a recreational structure that is being endorsed on a forum full of regs who don't like the idea of a tournament that makes it statistically harder for a reg to be dominant in. Geeeee, I wonder why "nobody has come to (my) defense."

It's harder for regs to dominate R/A? How? Actually don't answer that. If you don't see how it's easier for regs to dominate R/A then I'm not sure I should be talking to you about this stuff anyway.

FWIW, no I'm not doing the same thing as you. I don't really care that much about the structure of a 10 dollar tournament. I might play it for the hell of it from time to time, but it's not really on my radar that much. It's more that I want them to make the right decisions, because in general you're right that these things build from the bottom up.

But I don't see any reason to believe that a 10 R/A would be able to hit a huge GTD pool and be a net positive for the site and the economy.

(Saying you'll be ready to "post the stats" when WPN runs it is basically saying you'd be OK with posting juiced up stats to support your position, and everyone here knows it. WPN has no plans of running such a tournament as far as we know. If you have any real reason to believe that a R/A structure will outperform a Re-Entry stucture for the players and the site, then you should be able to find real life reasons to back up your claims. Otherwise it is hearsay, plain and simple, and it's you advocating the structure you'd like better. There's nothing wrong with that, but call it what it is.)

It's not the structure that it makes it more difficult. It's the increased size of the field that makes it more difficult.

A tournament with 2,000 players is going to be statistically harder to consistently dominate the field in than a tournament with 500 players by default.

That's not open for debate.

So, you admit that you're oblivious to the desires of players who do play tournaments in this price range? That certainly explains it.

I'm arguing with people who have a higher average buy in than $10 dollars in their MTT's. Is it any wonder why these players are so clueless to what players who do play $10 buy in tournaments want? And, to think...WPN is actually making business decisions on $10 tournaments based on the responses of players with $50+ average buy in. I'm starting to see the problem here.

That's probably not the best move WPN. You might want to actually listen to what players who do play in $10 tournaments have to say. As that's your target market when you run $10 tournaments. Not higher buy in regs on 2 + 2.

That's like asking a Ferrari owner what is important to them in an affordable cheap car. Why would you do that?


You might be right, or wrong about regs being even more dominant, but that's not the point of this discussion.

It's a pretty simple logic:

More buy ins = more money in the pot

Your structure with 10,000 chips allows players to ride a single buy in much longer and discourages them from sticking more buy ins into the prize pool. 1,500 chips with double rebuy and add on options would easily generate more average buy ins per player.

Juiced up stats? Sounds like someone is concerned that I might be right.


The R/A structure outperformed the freezeout structure and generated larger prize/player pools for years on Pokerstars.

What more do you need?

I never stated otherwise.

I'm a recreational player looking to get a recreational structure brought to the site. Recreational players make up the majority of the American poker market. They always have and they always will regardless of the current state of the market. The current state of the market is a temporary anomaly that is the result of legal issues. It isn't a permanent state of the game. Recreational players aren't coming to sites like WPN because you don't have recreational structures that fit into the daily schedules of recreational players.

Further more, I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT ONE TOURNAMENT being added to schedule and you act like I'm attempting to change every tournament on the site. WPN has plenty of other options that cater to regs. In fact, that's all they have.

There's no way it gets anywhere near this number.

How about we test it out and gather some actual DATA before drawing a conclusion?

I definitely don't fall into this category, and I still think you're wrong. By making it a rebuy, you are turning a small stakes mtt at a price point that micro players can play into a mid-stakes tournament. Additionally, you are turning a big field full of soft players into a tournament with a much tougher field.

That's only true with YOUR strategy of firing multiple bullets each time. With mine it's still just a single $10 buy in with the occasional rebuy/add on.

Boney said the exact opposite.

I for one that played in both $11- 20k gtd, would not play in a rebuy format. I prefer a freezeout personally and the 5 hour late reggy bothers me enough.

I said it before and will say it again just bring down the GTD to 10k daily and see if able to cover this. Regardless make a 15k or 20k on a sunday at 3 pm with the 12 min levels and I am certain it will cover.

What are you going on about? A rebuy tournament benefits regs, not recreational players.

Most people don't play rebuys conservatively. And you're making two claims overall 1) the structure pushes people to rebuy 2) you don't like to rebuy 3) somehow this makes the games softer because there is more money on the line but less players. I'm not sure about that last one. I'm honestly at a loss as to what your logic is here.

I do agree there should be at least one decent re buy tournament on Sunday around 10+1 eventually, but I don't think it's the first addition they should look it because there are so many other structures which are a benefit to the site and the players that should come first.

You should work on your reading comprehension, because I said the same thing he said. Having a R/A structure would make the tough players tougher. I also don't know how you got the impression that my ABI is more than 50 dollars, that WPN is making business decisions based on what me or ICE said, that ICE plays the same stakes as I do (something he never revealed one way or another) and a bunch of other stuff.

It seems you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, otherwise this would have been a lot shorter and you would have just put the suggestion out there. I think we've very reasonably explained why it's not a better idea for a new MTT than a normal Re-Entry.

Edit - Also I'd point out that while I don't often play 10 dollar buy ins anymore, I did for a while. When that used to be my upper bankroll limit, I wouldn't play 10 dollar rebuys, the same way I won't play most midstakes re buys now.

I know.

That's why the prize pool gets BIGGER and insures that the $20K GTD gets hit.

Thank you for proving my point.



I'm not claiming there would be less players. You're the one claiming that.

I honestly believe there would MORE.


You can keep those tournaments around if you'd like and ADD $20K rebuys on top. Though, I'd downgrade your structure of tournies to $10K because I don't think it can hit $20K consistently like the rebuys.


I don't care.

I'm only concerned in making the prize pool LARGER.


I disagree.

Assuming the R/A meets the $20K GTD I don't see any reason not to put BOTH tournaments on the schedule.

If it doesn't then you drop it.

I believe a lot more people would play 10 dollar rebuys over the current structure.

That's how it was on Pokerstars. The rebuys had larger fields than normal re-entry MTT's. With the exception of the majors on Sundays. Which, would get 10's of thousands in one $10 MTT.

Uh.... Pokerstars didn't have reentry in 2010.... You have been arguing with faulty assumptions the whole time????

I never played as many of the freezeouts in that range. I'm more familiar with the rebuys in 2010 and I don't see any reason to believe that re-entries would've exceeded rebuy tournaments with MORE buy in options.

In fact, I don't see how it's possible.

I don't even see how that answer has anything to do with what i said. I'm just impressed by you now.... You make no sense, which is impressive, since I went to public school and have heard so many convoluted things in my time. For me to truly not understand what you are saying is impressive.

Here, have a gold star.