Doug, I really enjoy your videos. Keep up the good work.

That said, your logic regarding the flattening of tournament pay structure is flawed.

You said that as a higher percentage of players get paid out the less people are actually able to be winning players. Factually, that's wrong. Instead of 15% winning now 20% win.

Even if you meant it's harder for a player to make a living with flattened pay structures, I also disagree. Tournaments, more so than cash games, involve luck. Increasing the percentage of those who get paid works in part to diminish the variance that hurts tournament players trying to make a living.

You mentioned also that there's a lower ceiling. Perhaps...but the rooms bigger. I think it's ridiculous that first place in this years main event will win around $3.5 million more than second. ($3.5 million is close to what 3rd place wins I think). The later stages of tournaments, where blinds are relatively high, are even more luck-based.

I don't think the dream of rising from micros to nosebleeds is what keeps poker alive. Poker isn't going anywhere. It's a fun game that people love to play. I'm a rec player, and where I play in California, the games are great and most people have careers. They just love the game.

Also, your hyperbolic example of paying out 100% can be flipped around and lets just pay 1% of the field. There's an equilibrium that is both fair and good for the game/ecosystem, and I think paying 20% rather than 15% brings us closer to that g spot.

Take it easy and best of luck with your venture.

That rhetoric doesn't really work, as the two extremes aren't equally bad. The 1% event is far more attractive to a player with above average skill because it's actually winnable long-term, whereas even a superuser couldn't make money in the 100% format.

I've always disagreed with this, but I'm starting to change my view. Maybe the illusion of being able to win by outwitting your opponents isn't that important. The fun of gambling may well be enough. People play casino games knowing full well that they're rigged. They might still play poker even if mathematically unbeatable. I suppose a lot of people already do in outrageously raked private games.

It works fine; the extremes don't need to be equally bad. He's just saying that they are both awful options, which is correct. If on a scale of 1-100 (100 being the best) one is a 1 and the other is a 10, they're still both clearly very far from ideal.

Basically what Bluegrass said. Obviously 1% payout is better than 100% because at 100% everyone loses. But you're wrong that 1% is winnable long-term--- unless you have an infinite bankroll.

These two aren't mutually exclusive. Even rec players are capable of outwitting pros, and that's the fun of it all-- that's really the point of poker compared to pit games. Some just splash and gamble but they're the minority.

In fairness, I don't believe Doug said the 20 percent payout structure is a bad thing per se so much as it is a step toward a bad thing -- i.e. the hypothetical situation of a 100 percent payout.

In that case, he's correct... but it might be correct in the same way that it's correct to say if I walk from my living room to my kitchen, I've taken a few steps closer to New York.

There is certainly a balancing act between keeping tournaments worthwhile for the pros while still spreading enough money among the recs to keep us coming back. So the debate is whether or not the 20 percent moves us closer to that sweet spot. Hard to know, but I suspect the WSOP increasing to 15 percent and the EPT going to 20 will give us some indicators.

Wonder if optimizing engagement might be more of a thing with the WSOP in the US, where there's lots of disposable income?

It seems like Stars might be more concerned with how to take more rake from a dwindling player base, while a lot of players' currencies have gone down relative to the USD?

Maybe, not sure?

PS. Binks is very cute!

HA! no disposable income the housing bubble was solid.

fwiw the economy is not coming back in the us until middle class can be restored by somethingz( more millionaires less billionaires) but with TPP in progress and not likley to be stopped NDIHBS!

Guess a lot of economies aren't doing so great these days, due to stuff like the wage gap Still, guess was there that graph that was showing that people in the US seemed to have a lot more money to play poker with than most of the people who play on Stars these days?

Guess was just wondering if maybe Stars just cares about their bottom line - so like even a lot of people like the changes, if the extra people who min-cash don't spend that extra money on Stars, would they probably get rid of the changes?

im sure your right . its the mentality of these companies these days. its probably always safer to understand theyre here to fleece people. poker is interesting to watch because it is its own little micro economy but its funny that even in this microcosm people still cant get together to benefit themselves. imo

Just to give everyone a heads up, polkernews will be taking next week off to let the news catch up a bit. I don't want to have to force episodes and hopefully some good stories come up in the off week.

Sorel Mizzi is in the news again. Would like to hear your thoughts on that topic.

Are you filming from inside the closet?

My goodness there is so much wrong with your post but this stands out. You claim that something is factually wrong and you support this by saying that more people mincash. Well doh, more people make it to the money genius. In tournaments you win money by cashing more on average than the buy in, if I brick 90% but make it to the final table a lot I still win. Having more people mincash does not make them winning players if that is like 110% of the buy in.

Wasn't planning on watching these updates, since am always lurking around anyways? But checked out a couple to see if your doggie would be on, and wound up really enjoying the funnies!

eg.



hahaha!!

Hey fishfood - sorry for my first ... got confused and didn't understand

That was a really great point! Was mistaken to bring up countries - guess the big thing that makes it possible to tinker with payout structures ... is it (long-term) roi?

Like, guess some people have been saying it'd be nice if there were flatter payout structures so more people make ITM. While Doug's concern was that flattening out structures might be making some games unbeatable in the long-run ...

Guess when tourneys are soft, there might be more room to pay out more people and still have long-term winners? But if tourneys are tough and the edges are thin, then maybe that's where games risk becoming unbeatable? And those EPT high rollers are supposed to be super tough. But maybe something like the WSOP Main Event could withstand flatter payout structures ... is that maybe a tourney that might have room to have a 20% ITM, or maybe even more?

fishfood - hope you're having a really nice weekend ... all the best!

I felt kind of awkward pointing it out myself. I guess you're talking about being a winning tournament grinder. Firstly, I'll say that 95% of the ppl who choose to do this are making a mistake and would be much better off putting their energies elsewhere. That said, I still think flatter pay structures benefit tournament 'pros.' There are a bunch of reasons for this but it gets a bit nuanced and judging from your posts on this forum I'd imagine grasping that would exceed your limitations.

I'm gonna write this down.

Actually, if you win 110% of your buy in, you are a winner. You see, as you so astutely pointed out, "in tournaments you win money by cashing more on average than the buy in."

If you're a tournament pro, then that 10% probably isn't enough to cover your overhead. But even when 20% of the field gets paid, if you make a final table you do fine.

You really missed the point of his post which is completely spot on. But I guess if you want to take it completely out of context, you are correct.

I laughed.

Thank you.


Edit: Context

When there is no good stories, create your own!

can't wait for next episode

Isn't it about time for an update?

Next update to include Doug, Katie, and Binks all rolling around in cash.

Hi Everyone:

I agree. It's time for another Polkernews.

Best wishes,
Mason

I got something in the works, things have been extremely hectic with me playing WCOOP and streaming.

Once I return to Vegas we should hopefully have the material for another good run of polkernews episodes.

In your own time dude, seriously. Enjoy your score.