Just another treasure from WPN CEO. Can someone tell him that having a schedule without freezouts, where re entry tournaments kill the poker ecosystem cause fish have to bust the better regs once and once again diminishing the luck factor so much that fish need a miracle to win a tournament?

?? i play on several U.S.-facing sites that allow unlimited reentries and i'll tell you the fish don't seem to mind it one bit, and there's still a ton of variance within one tournament whether you're a fish or a reg

basically what you seem to be arguing is that for the health of the poker ecosystem overall, the factor of fish not wanting to re-reg because their chances against the big stacked regs are not great outweighs the factor of fish wanting to re-reg because they're fish and they want to play more poker

i for one do not agree with that

Fish dont mind cause they dont even understand why they are losing and more important...losing so fast.

My argument is that unlimited re entries make recs lives very hard. The best players can always re enter. Imagine that you are the fish and you win a cooler vs a shark or suck him. He will re enter and you need to have the luck to bust him again in a very deep structure that benefits the regs.

Just look to the mtts lobbys. You have always the same guys at ft´s. Luck factor is dramatically reduced for this combination of reentries + deep stacked structures.

Again, If you are the fish and you c ant make itm 99% of the time its a bad experience and you will stop depositing.

i understand your point better now but i still don't agree

partly you're talking about the 15 min levels structure which is a different debate than the question of re-entries

I am not against unlimited re-entries, but I would say that it makes it more likely that the most skilled players will make the FT because they have the ability to fire multiple bullets with an advantage. Probably most of my FTs have been after dropping 2+ bullets.

Interesting. I like the unlimited reentries and 15 minute blinds because I want a tournament with a lot of fish, a big prize pool, and the edge that I have when I have a very long tournament. That edges comes from being able to adjust my sleep schedule and be ready to play well past midnight.

That said, I rarely take a reentry. At the beginning of a deep tournament, effective stacks are large enough that I can play a lot of speculative hands with the chance of building a big stack. I am playing hands like 54s, JTo, 33 and 97s every chance I get in a situation like that.

If I get knocked out one or two hours into a tournament my M is lower, effective stacks are lower, and I don't have as many chances to play speculative hands. If I got knocked out very early I might reenter, but I rarely do that.

Not to get to into a long discussion about EV and all that, but I do think many players are +EV even entering when the blinds are higher but the variance is far higher than compared to entering when the blinds are lower. (Or, more specifically EV divided by Variance would produce a much lower number, meaning the proposition is much more risky.)

I don't think re-entries presents a gigantic advantage or disadvantage to anybody other than the very best and worst players, but the very best players with proper bankrolls clearly benefit from unlimtied re-entry. I'll present two major explanations of why.

1) If you were the best player in a tournament, you would want everybody to re-enter many times, since you have an edge over every other player.

2) If you were playing a style which slightly lowered ROI per entry but significantly increased variance, your overall profit would be higher. EG: 30% ROI with an average of 1.2 entries per tournament is less long term profit than a 25% ROI with an average of 2.5 entries per tournament.

I understand, I just don't know that the way this is structured is bad for the poker ecosystem as a whole, which is a strong statement to make.

BTW "probably most of my FTs have been after dropping 2+ bullets" is obv kind of silly, your best chance of making the FT is on your first bullet and the chances go down from there so that's just variance that will even out long term.

I agree. I don't think it's bad for the "poker ecosystem." I do, however, think that a "ecosystem" which has a lot of players is better off using mainly freezeouts. But that's a different scenario and I don't feel like explaining why I feel this way at the moment.

Not really, since I'm almost always ready to fire multiple bullets if I am playing a tournament (not the highest buy ins.) I'm not saying I'm more likely to win on my 2nd or 3rd bullets than my 1st, that'd be silly unless I was also saying I suck at playing deep, I'm saying that because I'm able to fire multiple bullets if you see me at a final table I probably fired more than one bullet.

Meh kind of. But if you go in knowing you will re-enter if you bust up to a certain level you can play a more agro re-buy strategy take more flips and try to build a stack.

Also if I'm at a table with a lot of regs I am not opposed to gambling it up and trying to get a stack knowing that if I fail and bust I can re-enter and will likely be at a more fishy table

I am mostly a cash player but have done really well in th $30 big10 at 6pm. Did they take this one away? I didnt see it yesterday

Those of you that register for these things when they open are insane. I come in 1.5-2 hours left and there is still a lot of play and usually an hour or two re-enter period

I've never thought about this in terms of ROI per entry. My first thought is that it has major bankroll implications, possibly doubling or tripling what you bankroll should be.

For example, if you're playing $10 MTTs you should have bankroll of at least 100 buy-ins, or $1,000. But if you're averaging three entries per tournament ($30) your bankroll should be $3,000.

I'll have to do some thinking about your last post. You look at this in ways that I have never considered, and I appreciate your input.

I know that in my case, I am weakest in the middle of a tournament. I'm good at building a stack in the beginning and at short-stack play at the end. I have some work to do on my mid-tournament game, and I hate to jump in at that point.

It only doesn't run on Saturday, and on Sunday I think it's a 12.5k GTD but I haven't played in a while. I just remember that it was never on Saturdays.

It's actually simpler than you think.

If you are going to buy in early, use your regular BRM. The longer the tournament is running (assuming your edge goes down OR variance goes up or both) your bankroll requirements increase. Each entry should be thought of us individual, and is unrelated to your last entry. Like it's a new tournament.

Your edge may be smaller and the variance slightly may increase (per entry,) it's just long term variance that is higher. And I'm fine with that as long as long term EV is also higher

Thats why I dont bother with WPN except for a sunday major once in a while.

To summarize:

Well, Amaya took over Pokerstars...ruined online MTT poker by getting rid of the awesome structures and schedules from 2009-2010...still remains the leader in online poker because of a lack of options. Now, everyone copies Amaya's 2015 business model for MTT poker due to the fact that "Pokerstars is the biggest poker site in 2015" and "everyone must like those structures because of this fact." So, now everyone in the online poker industry lives under the delusion that the 2015 Pokerstars model is the model to copy when, in reality the 2009-2010, Pokerstars MTT model is the one they should be copying. This was the model recreational players were attracted to...not the 2015 huge starting stack with 15 minute blind model that everyone (in terms of recreational fish) hates.

If WPN were smart they would go look at MTT schedules on Pokerstars from 2009-2010...not 2015....where over 95% of the tournaments were freezeouts with about 6-10 rebuy tournaments only on the daily schedule. Shorter blind levels....shorter starting stacks....LESS TIME TO PLAY AN MTT=Easier for recreational fish to fit MTT poker into their daily schedules.

Recreational fish don't like 15 minute blind levels with huge starting stacks because the tournaments take too long to play and simply aren't worth the time it takes to play them. They would rather play for $10,000K GTD in 6 hours as opposed to 10 hours, but nobody really seems to understand that anymore...industry insiders and players alike.

Basically:

15 minute blinds and deep starting stacks (2015 online poker) = post flop play that caters to regular sharks who understand poker.

10 minute blinds and shorter starting stacks (2009-2010 online poker) = pre flop pushing that caters to recreational fish who like to push pre-flop, pray, and go weeeeeeeeeee!

Is it any wonder why recreational players don't play anymore? All the structures cater to sharks nowadays and it's just not fun anymore to recreational fish. You have to know so much more about poker to be successful in tournaments with 15 minute blinds and deep starting stacks where your success is dependent so much more on complex post flop play as opposed to pre-flop pushes in 10 minute level tournaments with shorter starting stacks that are more friendly towards the ignorance of fish.

Solid post, completely agree. A lot of the things you inputted are the main reason why poker is dying down and MTTs are becoming less beatable at higher stakes, and even some midstakes MTTs.

Look at Bovada's nightly $55 buy in $30K guaranteed.

-3,000 starting chips

-10 minute levels

-freeze out structure


THIS IS POKERSTARS' EXACT 2010 MTT STRUCTURE. WAKE THE F""CK UP!

WHY DO YOU THINK BOVADA IS THE THIRD LARGEST SITE IN THE WORLD?!!!

It sure as hell isn't the 4 table limits in cash games, the anon tables, the crappy software, or the non synchronized breaks in MTT's. Which, are all factors that deter people from playing on the site. It's because Bovada gives them the great MTT structures with large prize pools from the pre-Black Friday days that we all loved and constantly get nostalgic over.

Bovada is more like Pokerstars in 2010 than the current Pokerstars. They get it. That's how badly you're dropping the ball WPN...Bovada won't even allow you to see screennames. Yet, that site is STILL more like Pokerstars pre-Black Friday than your site. Bovada (even with all their flaws) does a better job of copying Pokerstars from 2010 than you do WPN. That's the reality of the situation.

WTF is it going to take for WPN to give people what they want and host some $10K GTD tournaments with 10 minute levels and smaller starting stacks? I've seen your company attempt to host $1k GTD tournaments with 10 minute structures, but where are the higher $10K GTD tournaments? Obviously, you're paying attention from the fact that you've put a couple 10 minute MTT's on the schedule, but you're forgetting the most important factor in those tournaments....$10K GTD PLUS....not $1-2k GTD.

5 figure GTD's with 10 minute levels WPN. Seven nights a week. Make it happen.

I don't have any major problem with any of what you said, but I'll say what I have said before--none of this matters if the tournaments constantly lag and/or freeze. This isn't anything new, and it can't be just because of DDOS attacks. It's been happening for FIVE YEARS. But WPN is the micro problem.

The macro problem is that there are no good online options. WPN doesn't work right a fairly high percentage of the time. Must Juicy Stakes tournaments (I think that's the Merge Network) has very high rake and many tournaments with 5-8 minute blind levels This is the opposite of the WPN problem, as no decent player, or someone who thinks he's a decent player, wants to play turbos all the time.

Bovada has anonymous tournaments, so reads, notes or HUDs can't be used. Other sites have ridiculous policies, like minimum cashouts that are more than a median ability player will ever win online, with the minimum withdrawl being many times the minimum deposit.

Online poker is a big pile of crap and we're arguing about which part of the pile smells the least bad.

Yea, but recreational players don't care about HUDS, reads, or notes. It's a big myth circulating in online poker that they actually do care about that at all. There is no data to back it up. There are market trends and false conclusions based on those trends....one of those false conclusions is the negative perceptions that recreational players have of HUDS....but, no actual research has been done to check with players to see if they dislike HUDS. Actual research would constitute market research studies where they directly ask thousands of players if they like HUDS, or not, and nobody on this forum has ever presented any such studies....not Pokerstars, not Bovada...NOBODY.... All these poker companies are doing is saying, "Oh...look. People don't like playing online poker anymore.....numbers are down...must be the HUDS." No major corporation in the world would do business like that and change policies based on whimsical notions the way these poker sites are currently doing. It would be hilarious if it weren't so frustrating for the players.

Recreational players only care about having big prize pools in MTT's, fast structures they can fit into their daily schedule, and fast withdrawals when they do go to cash out. S, far Bovada is the only option that provides all 3 of these crucial factors. The other thing that Bovada has is an equal number of technical difficulties to WPN. So, that's not WPN's biggest issue. As Bovada has been right there next to them with lag, freeze ups, etc.

People complain about technical difficulties regularly in the Bovada thread, but they're the third largest site in the world. It's because of the superior selection of $10K plus GT tournaments and the faster structures that are easier for recreational players to fit into their daily schedules.

WPN just can't compete with only two $10K GT tournaments a night versus Bovada's ten $10K+ GT tournaments a night with better structures.

@LeakyChips, some of your facts are off.

Bovada nightly 30k is 12 minute levels.

2009-2010 Pokerstars mtts were mainly 15 minute blinds and FTP was mainly 12 minute blinds.

I agree with you that mtts shouldnt be running so long and most people dont want to play 5 hours for a mincash.

That's still significantly faster than tournaments with 15 minute blinds and 5,000 starting chips. It's not just the blind levels. The starting stacks are a big factor. Bovada's is 3,000 starting chips. Most of WPN's are 5,000+ with 15 minute levels.

Which, isn't completely bad....it just sucks that WPN has such a weak selection of tournaments with $10K+ GTD. If they would just host more bigger tournaments throughout the week I don't think the length of the tournaments would be near as big of a factor. I think it's only a factor on WPN because you only have 2 tournaments to play for 9-10 hours. As opposed to having 10 tournaments to play for 9-10 hours. It makes sitting at your computer much more valuable and worthwhile if you have more tournaments running during that 9-10 hour time period. For example, when you only have 2 tournaments and you bust out after 7 hours of play you just walk away feeling as if you wasted a bunch of time for nothing. Whereas...having 10 tournaments going means you can bust out of 2 tournaments and have 8 more still going that you can get value out of for your time....makes playing for 10 hours worth it.

WPN could keep the structures they have if they would just put up at least 10 solid $10-30K+ GT tournaments a day. They may even steal some of Bovada's customers who would prefer 15 minute blinds and 5,000 starting chips, but only play Bovada because of the superior selection of tournaments available to them.

I don't even particularly like Bovada's $30K GTD tournament because it plays much more like a turbo requiring a lot more luck than a tournament with 15 minute levels and 5,000 starting chips. If WPN ran the same $30K GTD tournament with the same $55 entry with 15 minute levels and 5,000 starting chips plus re-entry (which, Bovada's is a freezeout) I think it would be awesome.



I didn't play many freezeouts on Pokerstars in 2009-2010. Even though, the ones I do remember playing didn't last as long as these on WPN. The blinds can be 15 minutes and still have a different structure because the blinds increased in larger increments during each level. It's not all about the length of the blind levels, but also how much they increase.

It just doesn't make sense that I could play a tournament in 9 hours with 5,000 players in 2010 (once played the Sunday Quarter Million with 33,000 players...got 3rd place...I was done in 10 hours) on Pokerstars and WPN's nightly $10K GTD with 500 players takes 9-10 hours in 2015. There's something noticeably wrong with that scenario and it needs to be fixed. Whether, they change the structure, or throw up more options with $10K GTD, preferably.

The rebuys (the main tournaments I played) on Pokerstars in 2009-2010 were 10 minute levels. I think I remember them going to 15 minute levels and an increased late registration period (went from 1 hour to 1.5 hours, to 2 hours, etc.----kinda like WPN has done) when they started having trouble hitting the guarantee on those rebuy tournaments just before their traffic started to decline in the summer of 2010. I pretty much just stuck to those rebuy MTT's Pokerstars in those days...was only playing 4 tables at a time on my crappy laptop using the finger pad back then.


Is there anywhere on the net to look up tournament structures from Pokerstars in 2009-2010? I've tried looking around and can't find info at all showing structures...part of the reason my facts are off.

I can't believe people defend re entry ***

The same amount of dead money is on the site whether a player can enter a tourney once or multiple times. That dead money will eventually turn into player profit or rake. The better players will get more of this profit. If we have to up our average buy in to 1.3x the buyin fighting it out for the same amount of profit. We are just increasing the amount of rake we pay for the to make the same amount of money. So we actually make less.

The site makes more but they can say they want the big gtds (nothing really proves the gtds would be significant lower with out re entry though since the effect of a healthy poker-ecosystem is not quantifiable) The players don't help with matters either but that would be a long post about how when we re enter we reduce other winning players EV but the when they reduce our EV back until we've lowered our ROIs significantly.

*** The site use to have an hour of re entry, except the big daily had two hours and the big Sunday tourney had three hours. I think that was fine since it helped the site have a few good GTDs. Beside that we're really taking the worst of it.

Do you guys actually watch the prizepools as you play the tournaments? The GTD's aren't met until usually the last hour of late reg.

If they don't have long late reg and re-entries, we have lower GTD's. Pick one or the other.. you can't have both.

Actually, you can have both. You just have to structure the tournament properly.

You do this by not having 5,000 chip starting stacks. If you have 3,000 chips as opposed to 5,000 it forces players to rebuy FASTER and more often. Making the guarantee much more easy to hit in a shorter amount of time. If you guys want your deep stacked tournaments then be prepared for long 5 hour registration times....that's the symptom. In that context "you can't have both."

itt people can't agree about things they can't change