I know I am in the minority and I'm also giving away EV, but I refuse to re-enter tournaments like this on principle. It's just a way for the industry to do away with actual rebuy tournaments and make more rake.

As for true multi-entry tournaments like on Full Tilt, hooooo boy do I love those things (even though I realize they are rake traps of another form).

in a business that only full of selfish douchbags and a lot of immoral scums it's pretty stupid to adhere to principles. i think best approach is to take as much as you can before it's to late but within the rules of the game.
and reentries always better then no reentrie at all with this format the bad players will lose quicker

I don't understand much that goes on in this thread. Why is the 2nd registration any different than the 1st one?

you can only do a 2nd registration when you bust the 1st one, but you can not do a 1st registration after busting the 2nd registration.

Why does it matter?

hero value can explain it better i think he seems like an expert in those re entrie mtt's and the value in them.

because late reg goes really long, down to 4-5bb starting stacks sometimes. and because there aren't really all that many fish rebuying a lot lately, sadly. some even learned to wait and reg late so they can get actually decent value sometimes for shoving terrible ranges. its kinda annoying tourney format, but doesn't look its going away anytime soon so its either adapt or die

It matters because paying rake for every entry in reg filled tournaments only decreases everyone's edge and increases profit for the greedy sites. I vote with my proverbial feet. There is enough action elsewhere for it not to be a problem for me... as of now anyway.

You seriously, truly are a massive ****. You actually are wrong and you don't understand, but with your constant, unnecessary and completely insufferable douchery, I'm not going to explain it to you. You are so cancerous to these threads, it's painful.

Yep. It's the best way

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...wards-1604451/

I'm not sure what to think of this exactly, but probably gonna make things worse unless you're grinding a lot of nlhe mtts too. But maybe it will draw in a lot of holdem players who normally wouldn't play o8 also.

I still don't really understand. The issue is not really the possibility of re-regging but it's too long late reg period.

Well, it's mainly about just trying to find that sweet spot of what (if any?) limits to set on re-entering to get the best value possible from a really odd format that all of the US-facing sites are pushing on us really hard. BTW there are a ton of blind levels and some last as long as 12 or 15 mins each, I think some games have as long as 5 hour late reg but 2-4 hours is more common. Payouts are pretty flat, but seem kinda steep for top 2 or 3. This last OSS event 20+4+2 KO($4 bounty) had 496 entries, paid out 81, and 64-81 got $35. 46-63 got $40, 37-45 got 45, 29-36 got $55, and pretty flat from there still but not as bad. FT paid - 1950, 1225, 850, 650, 500, 370, 270, 220, 170. Overlay of $80 but wasnt much considering 10k gtd.

funny that you do not react on my argument.

it pretty clear the more entries the toernement have the higher the possible ROI. The best players will gain a higher profit and it is obvious. ofcourse for the rakeback grinder it can be harder because the top 5% skilled players of the tournement are more likely to reentry then the bottom 5%,

it painfull that you wanne convince people those mtt will gain less value for good players only because you can only make little profit if toernement is full of fish and best players can not reentry anymore (and have to play less +ev to stay in the toernement)

keep crying about me instead giving math and arguments.

Stars now rakes every rebuy and add on in rebuy mtts

OMB is right in a vacuum. In any single mtt re entries benefit the best players. Having other good players being able to re enter may decrease the roi of your initial buy in slightly compared to a non re entry mtt but that doesn't outweigh the benefits of being able to re enter and have a positive roi on 2-3 entries opposed to 1.

Online deciding whether or not to re enter is a little different because you are rarely playing just 1 mtt. If I'm OMB and I don't play many mtts but I play the Wednesday 500 I would prefer it to be a re entry but if i'm lotuspod and I'm playing loads of games on various networks at similar buy ins in some cases depending on when you bust it may be better to replace the table space that mtt was taking up with a fresh game instead of re entering. For example if my roi re entering super late into one of these 15$ on demand re entry sngs Lotuspod is referring to is similar to my roi in a 15$ hyper sng I would be better off regging the sng and leaving the on demand sng.

Yup, and I would never ever play another R/A tournament on their site. You have to draw the line somewhere as players, even if you don't have much support from other regs.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand Amok. I am objecting to rake increases essentially. The sites are trying to change what used to be free rebuys into raked ones. This re-entry tournament scam was unheard of a few years ago and I find it disgusting. The fact that it's becoming standard now won't change my opinion of it.

how many successful online poker players do you know in real life?

poker for sure attracts some seedy characters but the majority of winning players are not bad guys.

I'm kinda trying to see if/where there are situations where the value on re-entering falls off too much to be worth the effort and the screen space could be better replaced by a different sng/mtt/OD. Of course on a big buy-in weekly event things are different, but I'm mainly talking about all of the daily mtts $10-$50 because there's quite a few of them across sites. The on-demands have a fairly short late reg, those aren't much of a problem but it is kinda strange to look up sometimes and the field has doubled or tripled in one of those.

"Funny" can mean (1) amusing or (2) odd. I find Hero Value's response neither amusing nor odd... also not unexpected.

You insulted him and he insulted you back.

meh. (meaning shrug)

Now you're insulting him again.

meh.

Buzz

no i really find it funny that he is whole time trying to be mister nice guy and polite guy but when i give very reasonable argument that he can not handle (for example bigger toernement more roi) he starts flipping out.

*drops the mic*

the choices,
1. pay twice the entry cost and start with the same number of chips as everyone else.
2. start with half the number of chips as everyone else but pay the same entry fee.
3. pay triple the entry cost and start with twice the number of chips as everyone else.

for each of the contexts below, which do you select?
do you make this selection because you think its the choice that maximizes your ROI?

A.
given a standard* sized prize pool,
*(that number of entries * entry cost-rake =prize pool)
# of players (entries) is between 35 and 55

A1.
same choices, but number of entries is likely 56-150.
does your selection change?

A2.
same choices, but number of entries is likely 151-220.
does your selection change?



B.
same choices, but given an overlay* prize pool, its approx.50% larger then if a std sized prizepool.
(prize pool is not directly related to number of players)
# of players between 35 and 50


B1.
same choices, but number of entries is likely 56-150.
does your selection change?

B2.
same choices, but number of entries is likely 151-220.
does your selection change?

4. take a seat at the rail

i am outa here

pay triple of course.

assume $10 for 1k chips to make things easier:

1 - $20 for 1k chips - 40 chips per
2 - $10 for 500 chips - 50 chips per
3 - $30 for 2k chips - ~67 chips per

idk yet how it relates to this though, but go on...i feel a lot of math coming our way