It's just weird to me how the overall tone of that article is like "Yeah mass entry isn't bad for you because other than that guy who sucked all of the ****ing money out of the tournament, that group of players lost on average." When you make points like
Quote:
• Only three of those 21 users turned a profit. The average user with 100+ entries lost $1,200, and two users lost more than $10,000.
• 10 of those 21 users didn’t have a single lineup finish in the top 1,000.
it seems rather curious to include right below a table that shows that the 100+ entry group absolutely destroyed the tournament. We know that the 100+ lineup group is composed of some very good players who are capable of wrecking the field on any given night. So yeah, most of the guys who didn't win one particular event are likely to not do well as a group because so much of the money is concentrated at the top. "maxdalury is great but loool @ all of these other guys" is the kind of terrible takeaway you get from a tiny sample and such narrow focus. Also,
Quote:
There has been some discussion about how mass multi-entry and stacking affects the cash line in GPPs. The table below shows last night’s Payoff Pitch had the lowest cash line compared to the other big GPPs and 50/50s.
the lower score to cash could actually mean that more people are playing the large field correctly by going long with high variance plays, so it's not necessarily a good thing for someone trying to go deep.