What I'm saying is that if your goal is to increase the amount the dealers make per down there are two ways to do it.

Increase the amount t coming in or decrease the number of downs (alter the structure).

If you want to increase the amount coming in... why complicate it by your method. Take 3.25% of all buying rather than 3% of some and 3.5% of later buyins.

Suppose one day you have no later buyins .... why don't you want the down rate to increase in that case?

But you still didn't explain why there is less harm to the players?

The overall amount in the price pool doesn't really matter compared to what % of a players buy-in goes into the price pool.

Taking more vig from later entries hurts the early entries just as much as the late entries.
Effectively, vig is taken from the prizes that are awarded, not from individual entrants, and everyone faces the same prize structure.

The only way to incentivize early entries is to discount their buy-in (or increase the buy-in of late entries). You could also say the first x players get a free add-on, while later players must pay $y for the add-on.
What OP is proposing actually incentivizes late entries because they will have a better idea about the actual cost of the tournament.

It's and interesting topic for sure. Airlines change their price points all the time based on how far out you book and how full the plane is becoming. I know it sounds crazy but a full plane may actually cost the airline more to operate (per passenger) based on fees and fuel. You 'can't' do that in poker, every entrant should pay the same amount per entry (per equivalent chip amount).

We have a casino near me that would give extra chips to those that entered their Saturday tournaments 'before' Saturday. They did this to gauge how many dealers they would need. It worked short term but then the 'out of towners' stopped entering the tournament as much.

As I've stated earlier the casino should know how many entries it needs to 'break even' on tournament set up/administration. The key comes in if they are willing to spread any extra to the hourly staff (maybe salary too) once that 'overhead' cost has been covered. My guess is that would be resisted.

The big issue here is trying to explain the reasoning behind the changed vig to all kinds of players. Working in business management I understand the need to cover increased costs. Trying to explain some of the production tactics to 'the worker' can be a task for sure. Trying to explain to a lot of players that you are taking potential money from them to cover the increased costs of operating the tournament doesn't go over as well as telling them they were receiving a discount previously. It's all in the presentation. Change is generally not well received but then typically just blends into every day life after 'awhile'. GL

First, you say it worked only short term and explain why it didn't work long term. Then you argue that change wouldn't be well received at first, but people stop caring long term.

Good catch. Maybe he means that the adverse effects become the new normal, as in nobody remembers a time before the change. I don't know.

These two sentences describe the same thing. You understand that, right?

Keep in mind that system would make it pretty difficult for any player to see that the prize pool is correct, because in order to do so they would need to have knowledge of how many players entered before the cutoff and how many after.

Fewer tournament downs means dealers are doing more cash downs. Down rate is lower for the day but income from tips is higher.

I think it does. Many late entries buy in once they see the prize pool get to a certain amount. They think if 1st is getting 25% and 25% of X is this amount, well that might just be worth buying in to.

Probably add wording at the bottom of any signage that says (for example) "Vig is 3% up to 125% of the players needed to meet the guarantee, 5% after." It could probably be worded better.

Didn't you say you wanted to apply this to entries based on what time they entered?

No, vig based on number of players entered. At first it was more players higher vig for everyone but someone in this thread made a good suggestion that you have a higher vig on every player past a certain amount.

Now I think I see what is going on..... management doesn;t want to increase the amount going to the dealers because that effectively means they have to guarantee more.

suppose there is a $10K guarantee on a $100 tournament. Breakeven for the guarantee (the point where management does not have to add money -- even though they would still be losing money because of expenses) is 100 players.

If the dealers get 3% of the buyin then the breakeven point becomes 104 players.

So if the dealers are seeking more from management it effects this breakeven point.

if the dealers get an extra 1% then the breakeven point moves to 105 players.

If this is the issue it seems pretty petty by management who should have set a guarantee at an amount they expect to cover on a regular basis.

If this isn;t the issue..... then you really are just making this way to complicated. If your goal is higher downs simply raise the amount going to dealers period. a graduated tax system makes no sense here.

Definitely could be worded better. Say the vig is 5%, with a discount to the first N people who show up. Same structure numerically, but now the early registrants feel positive instead of neutral and the late registrants feel neutral instead of negative.

Having higher vig for certain players is exactly the same as having higher vig than everyone, unless some players are paying the higher vig in the form of an increased total entry fee.

E.g. are some people paying 100+20 and others paying 95+25? This is higher vig for everyone, because vig affects the prizes equally for everyone.

If some are paying 100+20 and others are paying 100+25, then you are actually incentivizing the early entries.

But it's not the same because it only applies if you get that number of players.

If I was going to do this I word it without reference to number of players. I would word by reference to the prize pool. 3% of the first $10,000 and 3.5% of amounts exceeding $10,000 of the prize pool will be eit held for staff.

But it still makes no sense to me why he doesn't want an across the board increase.

Competition. Why play a tournament with a 4% vig when you can play with a 3% vig which isn't increased unless the prize pool gets really big.

One players don't notice this stuff.

Two by charging it uniformly you can charge a different rate. If your cutoff is 100 players and you usually get 50 players over you set the staff fee at 3.3% rather than 3% and 4%.

If you don't make the guarantee the extra is effectively coming from the house so the players don't care.

Also forgot to mention, I would only want it going up when the tournaments are big, not when they are small. I don't care about dealers having low paying tournament downs if they are only going to do 2 or 3 tourney downs for the day.

Commenting here before I read the rest of the posts ...

In the first case there are players gaining a competitive advantage (more chips) than the rest of the field.

In the second case you are effecting all the players in a manner that essentially is invisible to the actual poker playing, only the payouts.

My point is that, similar to a cash game rake increase, players resist changes and then adapt. Whereas putting a player at an involuntary competitive disadvantage is viewed differently. GL

I think I may be looking at this differently .. or at least it could be presented differently.

1) Entry is $100+20 until 100 players, then it's $100+25
2) Entry is $100+20 until 100 players, then it's $95+25 for players above
3) Entry is $100+20 until 100 players, but converts to $97+23 above 100 and $95+25 above 130

My viewpoint is that players will adapt to #2 (or #3) way easier than #1. Did the prize pool go up with each player? Other than for the first couple who register after a threshold is met, yes.

One of my counterpoints is that a component of the $20 is a fixed 'set up' cost of the tournament ... say $400. That is met when 80 players register. As a player I see that 'extra' $5 per player past 80 as an opportunity to spread elsewhere. The question is whether or not management is willing to give up some of that extra once the threshold is met.

So I'm looking at 2 opportunities to get more funds into the labor pool. One via an in-house formula change once the fixed costs are met and the other by changing the funds coming into that formula ... Both are 'triggered' at entry thresholds. GL

#2 and #3 do not incentive entering early; they affect all players the same whether they were in the initial 100 or not. Only #1 actually places the burden of the additional rake on the later players.

But if you believe that casinos are not raking enough to pay dealers an appropriate wage, just increase the rake for everyone. #2 and #3 are very confusing for no real purpose.

Dealers make appropriate wages dealing cash games.

Big tournaments means lots of tournament downs for the dealers that day (and fewer cash downs). Examples #2 and #3 increases the amount of money they get from those tournament downs when those downs will make up a larger percentage of their day's income.

I still think it's unnecessarit complicated. Have you actually modeled this looking at how many downs the tournamentire will generate and the amount of additional staff money and how much that comes out to.

Also is room of limited tables such that more tournament downs means less cash games. Or does it mean more dealers dealing longer shifts?

No, the ratio changes. For example, 4 cash games and 4 tournament tables means 50% of your downs will be tournament downs. If it was 8 tournament tables and 4 cash tables, 67% of your downs will be tournament downs. If tournament downs are less than what you'd make at a cash game, then having 8 tournament tables means you'll make less money that day compared to if there was 4 tournament tables.

Not modeled, but I've seen it in person, having the vig increased for a tournament a year later because dealers complained about how small the downs were.

If it is 4 and 4 .... how many dealers do you have and how many downs are they dealing. If it is 8 and 4 how many dealers do you have and how many downs are they dealing.

Also if it starts 4 and 4 how long before it's 3 and 4 and 2 and 4 etc.... so it's not really 50%. Do you ever open more cash games as the tournament is breaking down?



I think you model it to your situation and see how much it will impact the downs. Just take some actual tournaments and calculate how much extra staff fee you would generate and divide by the number of downs.

Wouldn't this problem be rectified by just always paying dealers the same for tournament downs as cash game downs? I had no idea there was a different rate. And it seems like this would be best achieved by increasing the rake for all tournament.