Hi Guys,

As we are developing Global Poker Index to become the ranking poker authority, we try to build standards that are followed in the industry (casinos, circuits, tours, etc ...).

Due to the increase of number of re-buy/re-entries events, i'd like to know the voice of the poker community on how should be perceived theses tournaments.

Is a tournament with 100 entries and 20 re-entries, should be considered as a 100 people tournament or 120 ?

We as GPI, think it should be 100, to avoid this format to expand, but as well because our priority is the fairness at the table and to promote poker as a sport (sort of).

Any thoughts ?

thanks,

I think there is value in treating rebuys and re-entries the same way. I never really understood why one player entering twice is that different (in this context at least) to one player rebuying.

So I vote 100.

I feel a reentry or a rebuy should be considered an additional entry because that is exactly what it is.

It's ANOTHER stack of chips the eventual winners had to survive to make the money, make the final table, and get the win.

What's the difference if, at the end of the reentry period, one player late regs with a full stack for the 1st time, or a player who just busted, reenters ?

You have to beat that stack and player all over again !

It's the # of entries that matter to determine how many spots should pay, and what the magnitude of difficulty the field faced in reaching the money, the final table, and getting the win.

I just wish that GPI could track how many entries each player invested, so that true ROI could be determined

Considered for what specific purpose? If its just reporting number of entrants then why not show number of unique entrants and total number of entries as separate fields? In any case I don't think it matters much from that pov as long as you are transparent. If it is for POY points or profitability measurement then you should take account of how many re-entries each individual player made.

In some ways a re-entry is similar to a rebuy. However, I assume you always have data on who makes re-entries but may not have that information regarding re-buys? Also, add-ons confuse the re-buy picture, especially when for a different number of chips than a rebuy.

A re-entry might also be thought of like a regular tourney with the larger number of entrants (120 in this case). In the example you gave, winning the tourney is equivalent to winning a 120 player tourney, not a 100 player one. The winner has to accumulate all the chips from 120 entrants.

Neither approach is entirely satisfactory (due to the fact that you are trying to add apples and pears) but if I had to choose one for general reporting it would be the second (as that seems more reflective of what happened and maintains consistency with other factors such as size of prize pool etc). Generally the only way to accurately convey results is to show more info: for each player, the number of entries he/she made and, for the tourney, the number of entries, both unique and total.

Unless you know how many times each player re-entered, determining ROI is impossible, and giving them points in an index is a joke.

I really want to say 100 from a purist point of view. But, strictly from a scoring logistical point of view, players are competing in a field of 120 participants not 100. Whether they were unique or had 20 re-entries really doesn't change the fact that 120 players participated and had to be eliminated.

So, in a nutshell, if GPI is trying to award the most accurate score for performance/accomplishment. The question is then:

if it is a greater accomplishment for a player to win a 200 person tournament with no re-entries vs a player who wins a tournament with 100 unique entries and 100 re-entries. Feels like the same mastery to me.

It would be nice to track original entries and re-entries so that we could see what the base unique entries are for a tournament though.

You should just track both and let the public decide what is more meaningful. Why are you trying to determine one or the other? Just make each category sortable in your rankings. Naturally, the best players will rise in one category or the other and the answer will be so much more meaningful than an nvg poll.

I think they need to take a line on this to use in their ranking formula, so "show both" is not really an option.

If the eventual winner is one of the 20 people who re-bought, then it is more like he survived a 60-entry tournament, at which some of the seats were shared by two people.

If you want my honest answer, I would say tournaments with unlimited rebuys shouldn't count at all.

There's no correct answer really...
Seeing as this is NVG and therefore examples all have to be in the extreme..

An unlimited re-entry tournament has 100 initial entrants. One player shoves every hand and loses each time. Eventually he finally gets a stack, but he has re-entered 20 times. No other player re-enters.
If he wins, he has defeated 99 players.
If another player wins, he has defeated 119 players.

I don't agree with any system that makes public the information of who is rebuying and for how much

It's optional to have your name and info included.

Most tourney players want it. Those that don't, simply don't sign the waiver to include their info.

No......if wins he has won 119 stacks, with a cost of 20BI's

If another player wins, he has won the same 119 stacks, at a cost of 1BI.

I like the GPI and I definitely think it is good for poker. It seems to make more sense to take into consideration how many re-buys an individual participant has taken to judge their accomplishment.

Isn't it a significantly greater achievement if player wins a 2,000 person tournament on one bullet vs a player who wins a 2,000 person tournament re-buying 6 times no matter whether others re-bought or not. There should be some adjustment downward in points for each re-buy.

We are both correct, but have expressed things differently.

Re-buy and re-entry aren't the same thing to start with and shouldn't be discussed together. Since your question seems to be primarily about re-entry events the answer is clearly the total number of entries.

Rebuys and Reentries are very similar. The only difference is that rebuys allow you to add chips while you have > 0 and reentries only allow you to add chips when your stack is 0. Very similar formats.

That's not the "only" difference as I'm sure you are aware. You can disagree with me about how different they are if you want but they at least warrant separate discussion.

100 entrants. 120 entries. Entrants are people, entries are how many times those people entered the tournament. It's a 100 person tournament.

True for real life

but if a person gets eliminated then re-enters he/she is essentially being reborn and becoming a new person (stack) for purposes of the tournament.

the published results of the tournament should include the total # of entries, the number of re-buys, and the # of entries per player.

Whilst I disagree with the many people on here who don't consider consistant winners of live poker tornies to be an indication of skill, I just can't take the GPI seriously. Too many variables for it to actually mean anything.

The GPI is not about ROI. It is a ranking like in Tennis where you have to enter lots of tournaments and gain prestige, not like Chess where they look at the number of games you played and your results in them.

Therefore, an individual reentering should not be penalised unless you change a load of other things in the GPI.

OP asks if his team should count (for example a $1000+R) 100 man with 20 people rebuying for the same prestige as a $1000fo with 100 entrants or one with 120 entrants.
My answer is definitely not 120 and probably less than 100 if it is unlimited rebuy.

For reentries I feel the same.

GPI doesn't count cash games and unlimited rebuy is like a cash game where you can't cash out and are forced to use your cash to buy tournament chips for day 2. So it's like a hybrid.

lol at any index that's based off cashes. Most top 6-max hyper turbo SNG regs cash for several million a month even when they have a losing month; should they get on some list too?

@chinagambler - there is a maximum number of scores you can count per six-month period. And they look at the last 2-3 years. There is also a decay factor, so the last six months is more important than the sames period a year ago. But yes, the people at the top are all regular live tournament players.

OP - Maybe you should repost this and with a better explanation of what the GPI is and is not, and why exactly you want our opinions. You might get different answers.

Yes rebuys and re-entries are not exactly the same, but the effect on the prize pool is the same.

A - Rebuy tournament with 100 entries and 20 rebuys
B - Re-entry tournament with 100 entries and 20 re-entries

Both have the same prize pool and the winner has had to accumulate the same number of chips in order to win.

Both formats offer an advantage to players who are willing to rebuy / re-enter compared to players who are not willing to do so (not an unfair advantage, imo, just an advantage).

The current GPI formula is here: http://www.globalpokerindex.com/about/

It takes into account 'field size'. Rebuys don't increase field size but re-entries do.

IMO rebuys and re-entries should be treated the same. Either both increase the field size (or more likely, your formula changes to consider prize pool relative to buy-in instead of field size), or neither increases the field size. I think the second is more attractive, and doesn't reward players who rebuy or re-enter 'excessively' (if such a thing is possible).

^ If the lower field size is used then (for POY etc) the buyin should be adjusted (eg to the avg total buyin)