Fish,

How long would registration be opened if players started with a 1,500 stack?

Well, it doesn't have to start with 1,500.

That worked on Stars with a massive player pool contributing to the overall size of the average chip stack. You could up it to 2,000 to compensate for the lack of players. And, also provide a nice balance between this new structure and the current structure in many WPN MTT's that start with 5,000 chips. That way those players can basically get the same starting stack with a double rebuy to 4,000 chips for $20.

On Stars the rebuy period lasted 1 1/2 hours I believe, but I want to say it fluctuated from time to time (over 2009-2010) as they experimented with different formats just like WPN is currently doing. Which, is a good sign that WPN is doing things right if they're doing things the way Pokerstars does.

Again, 1 1/2 hours could be extended to 2-3 hours to compensate for the smaller player pool.

[QUOTE=A_Schupick;46238975]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.


I thought many of the regular tournaments (other than the rebuys) were reentry tournaments on Pokerstars in 2009-2010. I pretty much just played $3, $5, and $10 rebuys in 2009-2010 with the exception of mid range $10-50 buy in freezeouts.

So...I wasn't familiar with other structures of tournaments other than the limited amount that I played. As there were many tournaments that I never looked at and I just assumed some of them were re-entry.

Well, so much of the stuff you responded to was out of context and you basically made up what my points were in bringing them up, so I likely won't reply again. I actually wasn't going to but I wanted to bring something up about this statement.

There ARE reasons not to put both of those tournaments up, especially not in rapid succession. I HAVE said that it'd be nice to add in eventually, but WPN should be focused on building bigger tournaments that they actually make any decent profit off of running, and that are good for the poker economy. You may not want to acknowledge the reasons not to add in this tournament, but they exist.

Big GTD R/A tournaments do not make decent money for WPN even if the GTD pool is met, and when it's not they drain money. Not to mention that they are not good for the poker economy in it's current state, as they bust recreational players too quickly as compared to other structures.

You cannot simply compare PokerStars in 2010 to WPN in 2015. It's such a silly comparison I don't even know where to begin. But beside the obvious fact that player pools are smaller now, the player pool is also VERY different than it used to be. As you can see, pretty much everyone whose posted (I'm not doubling checking if it is literally everyone) disagrees with you on this. Feel free to speak your mind, but generally when everyone is telling you there are flaws in your opinion, you should realize that there probably are some big flaws with your thinking. I mean let's be real, either everyone here is in a conspiracy to argue with you or there are some serious flaws with your suggestion.

No, those reasons don't exist. You just believe they do.

Actually, they do. Because, they're documented to attract more players than this structure. It's not even mathematically possible for this current structure to build a larger prize pool than a R/A. I'm sorry, but it's not open for debate.

10,000 chips averages about 2 buy ins

1,500 chips "requires more buy ins" according to every person here (including yourself.)


So, that conclusively proves that the my structure will produce more buy ins (a larger prize pool), and the people arguing with me (INCLUDING YOURSELF), openly admit this.

Which, will make more money for WPN.

And, "everyone who is posting on this" consist of about FIVE people. That's hardly proof of anything. Other than the fact that FIVE clueless people are posting on an internet forum.

As if that's never happened before.

"FIVE PEOPLE IS THE KNOW ALL BE ALL."

That, or the FIVE people here don't know what they're talking about. It wouldn't be the first time in human history where FIVE people were wrong about something. You should do some reading up on the importance of sample sizes. If you did you would realize in the futility in claiming that FIVE people over ONE isn't indicative of anything. Other than the person claiming it posses ignorance of proper sample sizes.

Can you give a non-Stars in 2010 example of R/A attracting more players? The market today is different than the market then, so I would appreciate a modern example for an apples to apples comparison. You can use Merge, Bovada, Equity or any other site you decide that either is of relatively the same size, or has the same market constraints.

You're right.

A site today could never pull off a Million dollar tournament on a Sunday the way Pokerstars did in 2010 and hit the $1 Million GT.

Wait...

You are going to compare missing the guarantee on a one off event that had weeks and week of sats leading up to it, with a tournament that was ran every week?

Yup. Because it's PROOF that if you put up the same tournaments from that era they will fill up.

The only reason it didn't hit the $1 Million GT is because of the debacle in December and the disconnection problems. If if weren't for that problem the site could be successfully running the $1 Million weekly.

Oh yea, they could also run the $20K GT R/A. You could run any structure of tournament from Pokerstars 2010 and it would hit the GT. The $1 Million proves this. The market is there ready and waiting. The fact that a tiny little site like WPN can just throw up a $1 Million proves that the market is the same.

The market didn't disappear. The amount of money guaranteed disappeared. Put up the money and the 2010 Pokerstars recreational market will show up.

$$$= THE MARKET

Okay, so since you are so wrong, and refuse to admit it, i looked up Stars tournaments right now. There largest two $11 buy in tournaments each day are $11 freezeouts. Tomorrow those tournaments have a $40k GTD and a $60k GTD, neither are R/A. The largest R/A that is also $11 is $20K GTD. So if you want to hold Stars as the only site that know what they are doing, i present to you those facts. You are free to try to explain your way out of them, but i highly doubt you can.

I'm talking about 2010. When Pokerstars was open to the largest poker market in the world, AMERICA. Which, accounts for about 70% of the online poker market. To my knowledge, the tournaments you're referring to are being run on a site that isn't open to the biggest online poker market in existence.

WPN is, though.

O, so you are just stupid. For some reason, I guess I thought you wanted to have real conversation, but I guess I was wrong. I hate when i do that. If you really think that America is 70% of the poker market, then just wow......

Ad hominem. The sign of a defeated debater.

Sad, really...

Funny thing is...if the WPN $1 Million GTD never came into existence, and we were having this debate over the possible implementation of it in the future; you would probably say the exact same thing regarding the $1 Million GTD. "It would NEVER WORK."


Do you really want to argue for the impossibility of a LITTLE $20K GTD R/A working when it's already been documented that a $1 Million GTD will work? I could understand your argument had the $1 Million GTD never happened on WPN, but you're trying to say a smaller GTD, from the same era as the much LARGER $1 Million GTD, "definitely wouldn't work."

Are you sure you want to take that bet in light of recent events?

No, I think a one off 1m GTD could work, but doing it every week wouldn't, imo. Also, can you provide proof that US is 70% of the playing population? I would love to see those stats.

I've heard different figures from the pre-Black Friday era.

Some sources say as little as 30% (still the largest single market) and others say as high as 70%. And, it's not as if my argument depends on that figure.

Can you please link these sources?

I'm not taking the time to go look them up.

It was years ago that I read that.

Ok, you're trolling is done.. move on. When you are saying things like:

- Final tabling 2 tournaments on one bullet is proof that firing one bullet is the way to go

and

- One post-Black Friday tournament doing well is proof that running pre-BF size tournaments is the right thing to do

While also admonishing Boney on sample size, you are doing nothing but trolling and arguing for argument sake.

I never said that.

I can see your trolling has just begun. Lol


This is coming from a guy who just lied in the previous bullet point.

At most, Pokerstars lost 10,000 daily users on Black Friday, which was 40%, however that it ignores some other factors like players staying awya for fear that something bad might happen like all of Stars goes belly up. That is way different than 70%.

Source: http://www.pokerlistings.com/who-s-t...k-friday-14926

.

Yea, that's not the same statement you just presented in your previous post.

I merely posted that as example of how you can be successful in that structure without the extra buy ins, but I never said you couldn't be successful with the extra buy ins and that avoiding them "was the only way to go" as you dishonestly stated in your previous post. I posted that in response to another poster who claimed that numerous rebuys "were the only way to go."

That article has nothing to do with what we're talking about and actually contains evidence backing up my figures. As it clearly states that "40% of players on Pokerstars were from America" pre-Black Friday. Mind you my "70% figure" consist of every player on every poker site in existence. Not just Pokerstars.

The reason the site only lost "10,000 daily" players is because the remaining players from the Full Tilt pool moved to Stars when Full Tilt completely shut down. You're taking the article out of context and twisting the figures around to fit your argument. You probably shouldn't take articles out of context and hope that the person you're debating won't read it. Because, I will.

It only serves to make your argument look weaker when you distort the context of your sources.

Full Tilt wasn't shut down by April 30th.