Pros generally make their money off people with more money than them or who ignore bankroll management rules because they have a steady income. The only reason a pro would be more able to fire more bullets at an accumulator is that this is what he spends his time doing, whereas a professional probably won't be able to devote 3 different starting days on a wednesday -> friday for a sunday -> monday day 2 -> 4. But then again a lot can.

I'm a pro and whenever I've played an accumulator I haven't fired all the starting days, not because I couldn't afford to (if I can afford £400 for day 1a and 1b, it's pretty likely I can afford 1c, and the same is true of amateurs as well), but because either I've had other commitments or I just don't really care enough.

The way to think about this is the same as rebuys. If a tournament is advertised as a 1r1a, you budget 3x the initial buyin. That doesn't stop someone from wanting to fire 1 bullet at it if he wants to take a shot. He will have something like 1/3 as much ev if he decides only to fire 1.

For their tournament series multi-day main events, this room usually runs Day One for 12 hours or until 12% of the field remains, whichever comes first. I assume it will be the same for this event. Most of the time the Day Ones end at 12%, with a few of the larger weekend Day Ones hitting 12 hours instead, usually at about 15% of the field remaining. Day Two is rolled back to the lowest blind level of the end of any Day One. They usually pay about 10% of the field, so Day Two is close to but not yet in the money. There is usually a Day Three for the final table.

I can see the accelerator format working well with 3 or 4 Day Ones. But with 10+ Day Ones, the disparity between the big stacks, average stacks and short stacks will be so huge to be laughable. I expect something like:

Big Stacks: 2M+
Average Stack: 300K
Short Stacks: 20K

I figure that the average Day One bullets fired to hit these stack sizes will be 2 for a short stack, 4 for an average stack, and 9 for a big stack. This makes the average cost per 1K chips on Day Two:

Big Stacks: $0.68
Average Stack: $2
Short Stacks: $15

This actually makes the chips cheaper (on average) the more Day Ones you play.

This is just seat-of-my-pants math, but it sure seems like playing all or most of the Day Ones is the best plan. Playing less will likely put you on the bottom end of a very disparate chip stack field while still out of the money, and probably at a higher cost per chip.

I like the idea of limiting the number of times one player can survive Day One and accumulate their chip stacks. Or maybe just limit the number of stacks that one player can advance to their top three Day One finishes.

There is a flaw with the calculation.

People who fire 9 bullets are not going to get an average of 222K per bullet, your error is you are only looking at those who did fantastically.

You are right that there will be greater stacksize disparity and yucky playability though, but that has only a tangential impact on EV per bullet.

No, I'm just not painting the complete picture. I'm not saying that 9 bullets results in an average of 222K per bullet, or that 9 bullets will usually get a 2M+ plus stack. But in general for a quality player, the more bullets they fire the bigger their average chip stack per bullet (on average), and thus the smaller price per accumulated chip.

-Idk why I thought it was called "accelerator", "accumulator" makes much more sense.

-I'm +EV in "normal", level playing field tournaments.

-The size of the field doesn't scare me one bit, I've won online tourneys (granted it's different) with over a thousand players and have run pretty deep in similar multi-starting day tourneys with medium sized buy-ins ($300-500) at the local cardrooms and would have no problem playing in a tournament with thousands of players (a la Main Event or any WSOP sized field)

-My main issue here is that (like previously mentioned) there will surely be players who fire bullets on every starting day... it's absurd to think that Phil Ivey himself could fire one bullet and have a solid chance. Even if I could grind up 4-5 bullets, I'd only expect 1 or 2 to get through, and the people who fire (at least one per day) might get 5 or 6 through (pretty sure you can re-enter on the same day)... that is a huge disadvantage no matter how good you are. Not saying that you couldn't win the tourney or run really deep firing just one or two bullets, but it's highly unlikely.

-Not being able to fire at least one bullet per day would make it a bad business decision to play IMO.

-I really hope they plan to have a day 3 because with such deep stacks on day 2, it will surely slow the game to a snail's pace and forcing a chip chop or something would be absurd and piss a lot of people off...

-I highly doubt I will play, but if I can get backed ~20% and can afford to fire 5+ bullets, I might consider it. Gotta find out all the details to make an informed decision obv, but I'm leaning towards no right now.

The games will always be good.

If you guys think that merging two bullets together increases the total value of these two bullets, then why not just agree with the guy next to you to go all in blind next time it folds round to you two in the blinds?

Because that's collusion and it's illegal and immoral

If you can't afford to play, say, 3 days of a £200, then don't play, or do play and don't complain, or take a shot on all 3 days, or find a lower value accumulator (say, online), or wait until you are bankrolled for these things. To say they're 'not fair' is like saying that running it twice in certain spots and not others isn't fair.

Yes, but if you were at the table and two people from the thread agreed that, would you report them or would you just watch one of them bust out and laugh?

this is a non-discussion

If I said "not fair" I didn't mean it that way, but I mean -EV for an under-rolled player like myself.

My source says if you bag you get your entry back....what do you guys think of this?

I actually like that a lot... that means if I only have 4 bullets and bag in one of the first ones, I'll get another one... increases the chances I'd play for sure.

I think this will increase the disparity between the chip stack sizes on Day 2 because those that bag are likely to play more Day Ones than they might have.

In the end, I think the majority of players will have a distaste for an accumulator tournament with so many Day Ones when they find out how difficult it is to overcome the huge disparity in chip stack sizes on Day Two to get to the big money, or even to get up the pay ladder to break-even once in the money.

Will the payout scale be based on the number of entries, or the number of players that make it to Day Two? I assume the latter; otherwise the payouts might stretch beyond the number of players that make it to Day Two. Everyone starting Day Two ought to be in the money, but not necessarily more than their total buy-ins spent.

I also hope they are preparing for a larger-than-usual field for Day Two. I think the numbers will look something like this (assuming players get their entries back for any Day One they bag):

750 players
3000 entries
2300 prize-pool entries
225 Day 2 players
$276,000 prize pool
$450 average buy-in cost per player

Also, I hope Derby Lane keeps good track of the total buy-ins for each registered player. To figure out those that cash above the 5K net income tax reporting threshold, the poker room needs to net out all of a player's buy-ins against the payout, not just a single entry price. Theoretically, a player could cash for $6,500+ and still be below the 5K reporting threshold if they fired multiple bullets and re-entries. Any player that does pass the threshold should be given a W-2G which shows their net win figured as their payout less all of their buy-ins.

You are wrong. The EV or ROI is always relative to the amount that you have bought in. Buying a 100 stacks will not give you a higher return% on your money, in fact it will be less. Yes you have a higher chance of finishing in first (or 2nd or 3rd etc), but aside from having 100 times the chance of coming 1st, the chance is not a 100 times to come second and that's where buying a bigger stack will cost you money. In short, buying extra stacks for a linear prize (1 stack $100, 2 stacks $200 etc) is cutting your ROI. A reason why you might want to buy as many stacks you can is when the actual money return is bigger, so let's say $100 buy in gives you a +$50 EV and a $200 buy in gives you +$70 EV then your ROI is relatively less but you have more profit. The thing you are saying it is not fair for someone to buy in almost infinitely and having an advantage over others when actually he is getting less juice on his money than someone who buys in once.

You guys are overthinking this

I spoke with the room manager at Derby. He wanted to do something innovative with their tournament series, as the standard format of multi-day ones to qualify for day two with a circa 50K guarantee is now pretty commonplace, and pales in comparison with the big tournaments in Florida like the $1M guarantee. He wanted something cutting edge, fun for the players and competitive with the big tournaments.

Here is the scoop as of now for the upcoming Derby accumulator tournament series, which they are calling "The Best Little Tournament in the USA":

There will be about 15 Day Ones. A player can play as many as they want, but there will be a limit on the number of their bags they bring to Day Two (probably 4 or 5). Whenever a player bags chips (makes it through a Day One), they get a min cash payout of $150, which comes out of the prize pool. On Day Two, everyone will be in the money - although the bottom payouts can be less than the total a player paid in for multi-buy-ins, of course.

The reason for the high number of Day Ones is that the guaranteed prize pool for this tournament will be $250K. They are hoping this format will attract enough entries to cover the guarantee, but they are prepared to pay out an overlay if necessary.

The blinds will be similar to their past series, with long blinds on Day One and longer on Day Two. And they will track all of each players buy-ins to do the proper net wins on any W-2G.

With the limit on the number of bags a player can bring over, I think this format is pretty good. I plan on firing a number of bullets for my chance at a big stack on Day Two.

Nothing is set in stone yet, so feedback here is still being listened to.

they had this: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/22...2-mar-1407804/

As a recreational player where i could only play one bullet due to my work, I didn't play because of the disadvantage i would have by just playing one bullet.

Makes sense. But in this case, the Day Ones will be spread out over several weeks so there should be plenty of opportunity for fit most rec players' work schedules for more than one bullet. And with relatively low buy-in and the min cash for bagging chips, it's a pretty cheap entry for a shot at a big guarantee.

So, let's say the average person knows he'll play at least 5 day 1s. You're essentially trying to make it to day 2 in at least 1 out of those 5 shots, right?

Any of your other day 1s that you make it just inflate your Day 2 starting stack which is nice, but obviously not necessary to win the whole thing.

To me (I'm not very qualified to give this answer though) I would spend more on Day 1s than I'm accustomed to spending on typical freezeout and even rebuy tournaments.

Also, on strategy...would any of you have at least one of the buy ins where you were gambling it up more like you would in a typical rebuy hour?

This would depend on exactly how they limit number of bags to advance and such... IMHO if they only let 3 go through (just an example), and you get 2 through in the first 5 or 6 tries, then you should def be gambling it up trying to make that last one a healthy one.

PokerXandu: I'm really curious how they plan on doing this exactly...? Say they limit advancing stacks to 5 per player, will they let you keep playing and advance your 5 BIGGEST stacks combined, or would it be "that's your 5th advancing stack, you're done"? I think the former would make more sense, it would increase the prizepool by a decent margin.

Also, I really hope they're prepared for a day 3... maybe day 2 Saturday and day 3 Sunday, with 2 "last chance" flights the Friday preceding?

And I hate to even bring this up, but there are scumbags out there... what do they plan on doing about people who have already advanced stacks pocketing chips and adding them to their day 2 stack? That has always been an issue with any "re-entry" type tournaments. I hate to even think people are that scummy, but I know they are. Maybe make sure not to "chip up" anyone until day 2?

Idk, there seems like a lot to think about and work out, but it's slowly sounding more enticing.

You can play as many Day Ones as you wish and advance your biggest stacks combined up to the number of stacks limit. For example, if you bag 7 stacks, you will advance the 5 biggest combined to make your Day Two starting stack (assuming 5 is the limit they settle on - personally, I think 4 should be the most).

What you link to though is basically a tournament where they are at least presenting it under the expectation that almost everyone plays all three day 1s and you would hopefully advance at least one of your stacks to day 2. So you take a week off work (which would have to be the case anyway for people from outside London) and do 4 days poker. Sounds like a fun, hard-fought tournament and probably a good laugh with the same players hanging round for the week.

Totally understand that as a recreational player you wouldn't want to fire just one bullet if you couldn't get the time off work because you would feel like a second-class competitor. I think as a money-minded player I wouldn't mind spending 1/3 as much as the others, to only have a 1/3 chance at the prizes if that was the only time I could come. But if you want to do all 3 days and can't then your situation is no different to someone who can't enter because they have to go to a wedding on day 2.

Something with 15 starting flights is a different beast altogether and seems to break the ethos of what tournaments are about, even if a lot of the stuff about EV written in this thread is inaccurate.

Personally, I think even 4 is a bit much, because I'm guessing (off the top of my head) that an average stack going to day 2 will be ~35-40bb, and multiply that by 3 will equal around 100bb+, which is pretty absurd in itself (for such a "small" tournament). Not saying I don't like playing deep, because I do *although I feel like my strong point in MTTs is ~20bbs, but because it will take FOREVER to shrink the field down to the real money.

What are they working out now Xandu? You have an inside track on their thought process, correct? And a solid voice for any good ideas that may come up ITT?

It will be pretty much what I wrote, unless they get further feedback/suggestions. The main thing they are trying to do with the large number of Day Ones is meet the large guarantee. There is still a window now where I can get more feedback to them before they have to lock it in.