fyp ....is more realistic ^^^^ and also do the same ratio for the higher buyins

I also think they should always cap at 4 entries, 6 is too much imo

That would be good but it still wouldn't get me to play them. At my volume level I have no problem finding the number of tournaments I want to play at my buy in levels on multiple sites without these. I am not as upset as some, but poker is just a hobby to me unlike some. That means if I dont want to play them I just dont lol.

Dont know what the big deal is about METs tbh...FTP has a bunch of $26s tournies with dif prize pools, so if i register for 4 $26s one with a $18k, $22k, $34k and a $42k prize pool in a day its ok...right? But if i decide to use multi entry to register for 4 times for the $26s $42k prize pool this is wrong? It will affect my ABI? How about its the same tournie, same buy, same GTD prize pool but starting 30min from each other? Would this change something? So i guess by this logic playing 100x $2.20/180s turbos sits in a day its wrong too? Or the whole deal its just because they all start at the same time?

Swing and a miss.

in a MET, u can only win once. think about it

What are you talking about? It's a very simple point: anytime a tournament becomes a MET, it will become more difficult because it will have a worse reg:fish ratio because regs are more likely to max out their entries. This means that your edge over the average player in the field is reduced, which means your ROI is lowered (and your ROI is also lowered by the fact that you can only have one entry at the FT). It's that simple. And for people babbling about how METs decrease variance, of course they don't. A more difficult tournament (and so a lower ROI) is going to be higher variance. The simple fact that you get to play more of them doesn't lower variance, it simply lets you power through more tournaments in a shorter period of time. This MIGHT increase your hourly, to the extent you weren't able to max out the number of tables you were able to play without METs, and your edge isn't decreased so significantly as to outweigh the additional tables. But it certainly doesn't increase ROI or decrease variance.

ftp sent me a survey asking about my thoughts on the recent ftops and MET, i actually filled it out....

i actually really liked the 2m gtd 6x, and also teh 11pm gmt 109 4x turbo, but apart from that MET is all jsut death

By my reasoning the money in any tournament is in the top 3. You can only FT a MET once therefore you can only top 3 the tournament once. Given your example you can theoretically top 3 4 different times.

Again I am no expert pro mathematician but it seems rather elementary that the EV of entering four different $26s with four different prize pools would be drastically higher than entering one four times. How can that be wrong?

It has nothing to do with when they start, it is about paying four buy ins to win a single first prize. I would rather just play a $109 that pay $104 to play a the same $26 tournament with four entries. Play whatever you want, and so will I. There is no right and wrong. I am just saying METs are not right for me, thats all.

guys think they have a sick loss of ROI becasue they are not able to finsh 1st and 2nd.

Its a reasonable point. But if u r not able to adjust, quit poker imo

fyp

It has nothing to do with adjusting. It's simply a fact that only being able to take one entry to the FT will have a negative effect on your ROI. It won't be really significant, but it will be negative, there's no way around that. The tougher fields will have a negative effect on your ROI as well. Depending on who you are it could have a marginal effect or a huge effect, but it will have a negative effect.


Just read Seabeast's post. He's right.

petition to have stars take over FT? network merge FTW

fk ftp

I like it!

Imagine they had a 6-max RUSH MET capped at 6 entries. That would be the ****! I doubt too many people could play it without drastically reducing their ROIs or timing out.

Just dont multi enter small/tough fields..and u minimize the loss.. that cant be too hard..

It has an effect on your ROI in every field. You don't think the 75s have become tougher during MET week? The 26s? Just read the thread/check the lobbies, the difference is obvious.

Most winning players have an itm% around 15% so saying your roi is so negatively effected by the fact that you can only FT once is kinda ******ed. Very rarely are you going to merge entrys. Most players finish late approximately 10% of the time, you will have a better chance at getting deep with 4 bullets.

The real benefit that I see is for non nlh tourneys. The "specialists" have a substantial edge in the other games and with limited mtts to play it helps having more opportunities to cash. Many top players triple cash non hold themz consistantly.

Nobody is merging every mtt so I think the effects this has on roi is minimal because of this factor.

I also dont buy that roi is lower because good regs have 4 bullets and fish have 1. Theres a lot of bad regs with 4 bullets and even more fish are playing for the rediculous payouts. If you cant take the heat stay out of the kitchen....sink.

GG.

I mean, if you've really convinced yourself that METs are no tougher than a regular tourney at that buyin, there's not much I can say. I would guess that 90% of the people playing the tourneys disagree with you. Obviously if you're a complete boss, then all the tourneys are soft to you and it's just sweet that you get to play more of them at bigger buyins than you could before. But there aren't many people for whom that is true.

edit: And fwiw, I don't really think this is the end of the world. If MET week happens every other month or something, whatever, have fun FTP. There'll be a little bitch fest about it on 2p2, backers will have a few sleepless nights, and the world will continue turning. It's just my opinion that they are more bad than good.

But playing it for example 4 times doesnt increase the chances of FT at least one? Or is it better to register once a day for 4 days? Are less REGs this way?
This has much more sense.
Isnt increasing our hourly the most optimal? Isnt that why people play turbos SNGs?
Again..By playing the same tournament 4 times for instance doesnt that increase our chances of finishing on a FT on at least one?
How about there were 4 dif tournies but all start right about the same time? Same structure a GTD prize pool and buy in..Would it make any dif?
I think its more of having several shots to win that single prize
U will have more chance to get deep/FTs in 4 $26s METs tournies than playing just one $109...Guarantee u will spend a lot more buy ins at the $109 trying to FT than using the METs feature at a lower buy in.
Im more in tone with this, but also i identify a lot with what Mlaggo said.

Seabeast's post ftw.

seabeast ftw. I normally play everything up to 75fo and 10r during met week I don't playing anything higher then 26s on ftp. If ftp has a met week every couple of months and has a few select mtts mets then I'm for that. Anything more is awful for the mtt economy.

I for one am happy with double guarantee weeks on ftp since the mid stakes mtts on stars are def softer during that time frame.

This! AINEC.

Poker has to leave enough variance that the fish can score now and again, or they'll eventually decide they won't come back. Tournaments or cash games, it's the same: leave enough chance for the rec player to score often enough. If that's not there, the bottom of the food pyramid will decide to go spend their leisure money on something else. METs take that away.

this so much

+seabeast too obv